|
2022-TIOL-1450-HC-JHARKHAND-GST
Vinayak Metal And Chemicals Vs State of Jharkhand
GST - Petitioners are business concerns, engaged in trading of Iron & Steel, Coal and Salt and for the purpose of aforesaid, since they were registered dealers under the Value Added Tax have migrated from VAT Regime to GST Regime - Petitioners requested to revise its TRAN-1, but the same was not allowed, hence writ applications filed. Held: By the judgment rendered in the case of FILCO Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. ( 2022-TIOL-57-SC-GST ), the respondent department was directed to open common portal for two months with effect from 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022, which has been further extended till 30.11.2022 - Petitioners in the present cases shall also be entitled to revise its GST TRAN-1 form for claiming the short claimed input tax credit, as also, to revise its form, if any excess input tax credit was claimed by the petitioners as per the department - It is pertinent to mention that even the Ministry of Finance vide its Circular No. 182/14/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 has issued guidelines for verifying the Transitional Credit in light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court - As such, the respondents are required to abide by the said direction and proceed in accordance with law after proper scrutiny of the revised TRAN-1, if any filed by the individual petitioner : High Court [para 10, 11]
- Petitions disposed of: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1449-HC-MUM-GST
Sanathan Textile Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus /IGST - By Notification No. 16/2015-Cus dated 1st April 2015 goods covered by valid authorisation issued under the EPCG Scheme were exempted from the whole of the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act - When the GST regime came into force, Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act came to be amended by insertion of Sub Section (7) and Sub Section (9) that provided for levy of Integrated Tax and Goods and Services Compensation Cess - Corresponding amendment was made in Notification No. 16/2015-Cus vide Notification No. 26/2017-Cus dated 29th June 2017 - In the Notification No. 26/2017, the import under the EPCG Scheme which was exempted from additional duty under Sub Section (7) and Sub Section (9) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act was not included - However, within a short time thereafter notification 79/2017-Cus dated 13th October 2017 came to be issued and the imports under the EPCG Scheme were exempted from additional duty under Sub Section (7) and Sub Section (9) of the Customs Tariff Act - Question is whether the said amendment is clarificatory. Held: Even the Government of India was conscious of the problems faced by the exporters and the fact that the exemption has continued to be extended periodically and is valid even as on date, it is apparent that it was on account of inadvertence or oversight that while amending Notification No. 16/2015-Cus, dated 1st April 2015, by Notification No. 26/2017-Cus, the words, figures and brackets "Sub Section (7) and Sub Section (9)" were not inserted and that it was always the intention of the Central Government to exempt imports of capital goods under the EPCG Scheme from payment of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act - Notification No. 79/2017-Cus, dated 13th October 2017 has to be read as clarificatory or curative in nature, inasmuch as, it would, otherwise, leave a whole class of importers who had imported capital goods uncovered during the period 1st July 2017 to 13th October 2017, allowing the Department to levy additional duty under Sub Section (7) and Sub Section (9) of the Customs Tariff Act on such imports, despite the fact that the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 envisaged imports under the EPCG Scheme at zero custom duty - Consequences have to follow inasmuch as Petitioner will be entitled to refund of the IGST paid by Petitioner - The refund shall be processed and paid together with interest, if any, within four weeks of Petitioner reversing the entries of availment of the subject credit and debiting the said amount from the credit ledger: High Court [para 8, 11, 13]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-130-AAR-GST
Innovative Nutrichem Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant is registered under GST and are into the business of manufacture and supply of animal feeds, which are exempted goods under GST, for which they utilize the GTA / Security Services that are covered under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) - Applicant seeks to know as to whether they are liable to pay GST under RCM for the services procured from the respective service providers being the manufacturer and supplier of exempted goods falling under HSN 2309 9020. Held: Applicant is the recipient of the services of Goods Transport Agency and Security services, which are squarely covered under the category of supplies attracting GST liabilities on reverse charge basis, in terms of the Notification 13/2017-CTR - Further Section 9(3) of the CGST Act 2017 stipulates that all the provisions of the CGST Act 2017 shall apply to the recipient as if he is the person liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such goods or services or both, where the tax shall be paid on reverse charge basis by the recipient - Thus, the recipient of service is liable to pay GST in respect of the services notified under Section 9(3) of the Act, ibid read with Notification 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - Levy of tax or otherwise on a particular supply does not have a bearing on the taxability of other supplies received or provided by a taxpayer - Thus the exemption provided to the outward supplies of the applicant does not have a bearing on the GST liabilities under reverse charge basis on the supplies received by the applicant - Applicant is, therefore, liable to pay GST under RCM, for the services notified and covered under RCM, received from the service providers, in spite of being a manufacturer and supplier of exempted goods falling under HSN 2309 90 20 : AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR |
|
