|
2022-TIOL-1417-HC-AHM-GST
Ronak Yarn Vs UoI
GST - It is the case of petitioner that all conditions prescribed under Section 16 of CGST / GGST Act, 2017 are fulfilled and claim is made of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on supplies by petitioner - However, while reporting the same in return in Form GSTR-1, M/s. Bhilosa Industries Private Limited has reported GST number of M/s. Ronak Traders which is sister concern of petitioner and therefore, said supply did not get reflected in return of petitioner in Form GSTR-2A - M/s. Bhilosa Industries Private Limited realized its mistake and also has given a certificate to that effect - It is the grievance on the part of petitioner that SCN is issued by revenue overlooking this basic aspect - Therefore, challenge is made to this averment of notice which questions the petitioner of purchase of goods as well - Nonquoting of Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act in SCN is also under challenge: HC
- Matter listed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1416-HC-AHM-GST
Mukesh Jhammanlal Gupta Vs State of Gujarat
GST - In impugned order, it was directed that petitioner should deposit the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- before returnable date - Other directions were issued that vehicle in question-the car shall not be put to use and status quo shall be maintained with regard to vehicle - It is hereby prayed that condition of deposit of said amount is required to be modified - The court finds substance in submission of applicant about modification of condition when car is not usable and expenses of repair is indicated to be very high - Said condition is hereby modified by directing the petitioner to furnish bond of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- before the competent authority: HC
- Matter listed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1415-HC-TELANGANA-GST
Yokohama India Pvt Ltd Vs State of Telangana
GST - Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow amendments in the GSTR-1 form filed for the period January, 2018 to August, 2018 so as to correctly reflect the input tax credit as well as the output tax liability - Petitioner submits that during the period from January, 2018 to August, 2018 it had shown supplies to one of its distributors M/s. Bade Miyan Wheels - However, in the GSTR-1 form submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid period, the details of the distributor were wrongly mentioned - Inasmuch as by mistake the name of the distributor was mentioned as M/s. Hyderabad Service Station instead of M/s. Bade Miyan Wheels and because of which the distributor - M/s. Bade Miyan Wheels, is not able to utilise the input tax credit and consequently the distributor had not paid amount due to the petitioner equivalent to the input tax credit to the tune of Rs.11,68,456.00 - However, the time prescribed under the provisions of the CGST Act for rectification of errors for the returns covering the period January, 2018 to March, 2018 had expired on 31.03.2019; and for the months of April, 2018 to August, 2018 on 30.09.2019 - Consequently, the petitioner had made a representation before respondent No. 2 on 15.03.2021 with a reminder on 07.07.2021 but without any response, therefore, the present petition seeking reliefs.
Held : What is in controversy is the entitlement of the petitioner at this stage to claim rectification of omission/incorrect particulars in the GSTR-1 form filed by the petitioner for the period January, 2018 to August, 2018 - Sub-section (9) of s.39 provides that if after furnishing such return a registered person discovers any omission or incorrect particulars other than as a result of scrutiny, audit etc., he shall rectify such omission or incorrect particulars in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, subject to payment of interest etc. - The proviso says that no such rectification of any omission or incorrect particulars shall be allowed after the due date for furnishing of return for the month of September or second quarter following the end of the financial year to which such details pertain or the actual date of furnishing of relevant annual return, whichever is earlier - Supreme Court [i n Bharti Airtel Ltd. 2021-TIOL-251-SC-GST ] was of the view that the law provides for rectification of errors and omissions in the specified manner - Beyond the statutorily prescribed period, an assessee cannot be permitted to carry out rectification which would inevitably affect obligations and liabilities of other stakeholders because of the cascading effect in the electronic records - Supreme Court considered the mechanism provided by Section 39(9) of the CGST Act and thereafter took the view that allowing the assessee to carry out rectification of errors and omissions beyond the statutorily prescribed period would lead to complete uncertainty and collapse of the tax administration - That being the position, Bench is not inclined to accede to the request made by the petitioner as the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd (supra) - W rit petition is dismissed: High Court [para 10, 11, 15, 16, 17]
- Petition dismissed: TELANGANA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1414-HC-MAD-GST Sayar Cars Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)
GST - The petitioner is an authorised sales and service centre for Chevrolet cars in Vellore and a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - It is a dealer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - In respect of the AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, assessments were framed based upon an inspection by the officials of the Enforcement Wing in the premises of the petitioner in February, 2016 - The officials noticed at the time of inspection that there were lacunae in the monthly returns filed by the petitioner. Specifically, two defects were pointed out - The first related to difference in sales turnover as per invoices and the second related to difference in consideration on sales of old vehicles.
Held - It appears that the authority had proceeded solely on the basis of the proposals by the enforcement officials that included a proposal to levy penalty as well - To this end, the SCN does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 27(3) of the Act which states that the assessing authority must be 'satisfied that the escape from the assessment is due to wilful nondisclosure of assessable turnover by the dealer' - As regards imposition of penalty, all relevant circumstances arising in a case would have to be carefully scrutinised and the levy of penalty must be considered on the basis of the judicial determination of the question as to whether grounds exist so as to justify such imposition - Mere fact that the assessment was made to the best of judgment of the authority would not be sufficient for the imposition of penalty, as the degree of proof required for imposition of penalty is quite different from, and much higher, than that required for the purpose of framing a best judgment assessment - Furthermore, there was no finding recorded by the assessing authority specific to the position that the escapement of turnover was as a result of wilful non-disclosure or suppression by the assessee concerned - This would also vitiate the levy of penalty - the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority, that the imposition of penalty under Section 27(3) is automatic, is erroneous in law: HC
- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT |
|
