2022-TIOL-1424-HC-KARNATAKA-GST
Inxl Digital Vs Addl.Commissioner GST & CT
GST - Petitioner has sought for setting aside the order in appeal dated 06.10.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 - Petitioner submits that due to the untimely demise of his Auditor, he could not make GST payments on time leading to the show cause notice dated 24.02.2022, but he did not receive the same since his e-mail account has spam filter and due to which he did not submit his reply resulting in the respondent No. 2 canceling the GST registration - It is also submitted that due to the aforesaid reasons, petitioner also could not attend the personal hearing nor respond to the notice issued by the respondents - By the impugned order dated 06.10.2022, the 1st respondent –appellate authority dismissed the appeal refusing to condone the delay in preferring the appeal and on the ground that he does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period and the condonable period as stipulated in Section 107 of the CGST Act - It is contended that though it may not be permissible for the 1st respondent to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, this Court can condone the delay exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Held: In the instant case, it is the specific assertion of the petitioner that due to untimely demise of his Auditor and on account of bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, it was not possible for him to not only file the GST returns and make payment within the stipulated time but also could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed period - Bench is of the considered opinion that the explanation offered by the petitioner in not making GST payment, filing returns and preferring an appeal deserves to be accepted and by adopting a justice oriented approach, Bench deems it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and direct the 2nd respondent to restore the GST registration of the petitioner, subject to payment of all dues by the petitioner: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petition allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1423-HC-KOL-GST
Green Fizz Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs State of West Bengal
GST - Intra court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner against the order of the Single Judge - Writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging an order passed by the appellate authority, namely, Senior Joint Commissioner of State Tax Appeals - The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition was filed after a period of 3 and 1/2 years - The explanation given is that against the order passed by the appellate authority, the appellant has a remedy of filing an appeal before the GST Tribunal but the same is yet to be constituted and, therefore, the limitation would start to run only after a notification is issued constituting the Tribunal.
Held: Matter involved is a classification dispute as to whether the product manufactured and marketed by the appellant is a carbonated beverage with fruit juice or a carbonated beverage - The issue being a recurrent issue and the Tribunal being the last fact finding authority, the appellate remedy before the Tribunal is not only efficacious but an effective remedy as well - However, as the Tribunal is yet to be constituted, the appellant is left with no other remedy and is compelled to approach this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Delay and laches are not to be calculated solely by the length of the time taken by the party to approach the legal forum - It is elementary principle that none stands to benefit by lodging an appeal or a petition belatedly - There is no such allegation against the appellant that the petition was filed with mala fide intentions and with certain ulterior motive - Furthermore, appellant had deposited 10% of the disputed tax while filing an appeal before the first appellate authority and had the Tribunal been constituted and the appellant had filed an appeal before the Tribunal, it would have deposited further 20% of the disputed tax - Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Court is of the view that the writ petition should be heard and decided on merits rather than being rejected on the ground of delay and laches - Appeal is allowed and the writ petition is restored to the file of this Court with a direction to the appellant to pay 20% of the balance disputed tax within a period of six weeks and also furnish a bond to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority for the balance amount of the disputed tax - Affidavit-in-opposition is directed to be filed by the appropriate respondent within a period of 12 weeks - No coercive action can be taken against the appellant for recovery of balance amount of tax, penalty and cess: High Court [para 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10]
- Appeal allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-126-AAR-GST
Bambino Pasta Food Industries Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant has purchased an oxygen plant for Rs.62,74,200/- and has given it to AIIMS Hospital as part of their corporate responsibility under section 135 of the companies Act, 2013 - Applicant seeks a ruling as to whether ITC is available on CSR expenditure spent by the company?
Held: The expenditure made towards corporate responsibility under section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, is an expenditure made in the furtherance of the business - Hence the tax paid on purchases made to meet the obligations under corporate social responsibility will be eligible for input tax credit under CGST and SGST Acts: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR |
