2022-TIOL-1406-HC-AHM-GST
Sasikumar R Vs State of Gujarat
GST - It is the confiscation order which is prayed to be set aside - Also prayed is to direct the revenue to release conveyance without demanding any security - Conveyance in question has been released pursuant to interim order - As petition comes up for consideration, there is no gainsaying that order impugned is amenable to statutory appeal provided under section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Statutory appeal being available to challenge the order impugned in this petition, court is not inclined to entertain this petition on said ground alone - Accordingly, petitioner is relegated to prefer the appeal in accordance with provisions of the Act to challenge the order impugned in this petition - Neither the court has gone into merits while passing the present order which is passed only on the aspect of available of appeal - Time spent in prosecuting petition, shall be liable to be excluded as bona fide passage of time, if question of limitation in filling the appeal arises - Since the interim stay was granted by which conveyance of petitioner was permitted to be released upon furnishing bank guarantee and same has continued during pednency of petition, it deserves to be extended as petitioner is being relegated to appellate remedy - Accordingly, arrangement-cum-interim relief as directed in impugned order shall operate provided the petitioner extends bank guarantee keeping it alive as may be required during pendency of appeal - Interim orders are vacated subject to direction: HC
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1405-HC-MAD-GST
Ramki Cements Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer
GST - Petition is filed against impugned order of Demand of Tax and Penalty in Form GST MOV-09 and sought a direction to respondent to release the goods of petitioner - Contention of petitioner is that, mistakenly, in consignment was mentioned as if it is transported to Chennai - After intercepting the consignment, respondent has issued the impugned notice to driver and same was not received by petitioner - Therefore, petitioner claims that adequate opportunity was not granted to him - SCN issued to driver is not adequate - Accordingly, impugned order of Demand of Tax and Penalty in Form GST MOV-09 is hereby quashed - Respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice, thereafter, petitioner shall submit his objection - After considering objection, respondent shall pass speaking order, within a period of eight weeks: HC
- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1404-HC-AHM-GST
Zephyr International Vs Pr.CC
GST - The petitioner filed this petition inter alia putting forth the case that it has exported goods during period between November, 2019 to June, 2020 - It was the further say that petitioner was eligible to get refund of IGST in accordance with provisions of Act, however refund aggregating Rs.1,31,89,893/- and Rs.6,98,991/- towards duty drawback were withheld by authorities - When petition came up for consideration, petitioner made a statement before the court that principal prayer regarding grant of refund of IGST does not survive as they had already received the refund amount to full extent - He however submitted that claim towards payment of interest survives and therefore he pressed the prayer with regard to grant of interest - When the authorities have already paid refund amount, as per interest aspect is concerned, the court is of the view that petitioner could make appropriate application since grant of interest is contemplated under the statute, before Goods and Services Tax Authority putting forth his claim for interest on the refund: HC
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT |
