GST - S.30 provides for revocation of cancellation of registration but that only envisages a situation where a registration is cancelled by proper officer on his own motion and not where registered person has applied for and got his registration cancelled: HC

GST - Appellants had explained that there is absolutely no mens rea on their part and there was no intention to evade payment of tax, concerned authority is required to record the reasons in writing as to how and in what manner mens rea was established: HC

GST - Issues w.r.t transition and distribution of ISD credit - Petitioner c an, in terms of SC decision in Filco Trade Centre, file GST TRAN-1/revised GST TRAN-1: HC

GST - Bail - Cyclic transactions - There is no denial of the fact that economic offences constitute a separate class of their own, but trite it is that presumption of innocence is one of the bedrocks on which criminal jurisprudence rests: HC

GST - Aggrieved assessee is directed to file TRAN-1 or revise the already filed form irrespective of whether WP is filed or the case has been decided by ITGRC: HC

2022-TIOL-1457-HC-MAD-GST

TVL Kodai Automobiles Ltd Vs GST Council

GST - Petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the  1st respondent to enable the petitioner to file GST TRAN-1 electronically and treat it as filed in accordance with law.

Held:  Issue stands covered by the order of this Court in the case of A-One Tiles & Arihant Marble (WP Nos. 8870 & 8877 of 2019, dated 16.08.2022) wherein the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Filco Trade Centre P Ltd. - 2022-TIOL-57-SC-GST was followed - It was held therein that the aggrieved registered assessee is directed to file the relevant form or revise the already filed form irrespective of whether the taxpayer has filed writ petition before the High Court or whether the case of the taxpayer has been decided by the Information Technology Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC) - Writ petition stands disposed of: High Court [para 2, 3]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1456-HC-P&H-GST

Rajan Arora Vs State of Punjab

GST -  Petition has been filed seeking grant of regular bail in the matter of offence registered u/s 132 of the Act, 2017 - As per the allegations levelled, the petitioner is accused of having contravened the provisions of the Act, 2017 and evaded tax - Inasmuch as it is alleged that the petitioner created a network of around 16 firms and there were multiple transactions inter se and the gravamen of the complaint is that the amount of inward supplies is higher than outward supplies which suggested that the remaining goods are in stock but as per registration details, no godowns or additional place of business was being maintained by any of the firms; that the aforesaid fact of cyclic transactions was tracked in Business Analytics and Fraud Analysis module BIFA - Petitioner submits that he is in custody since 09.03.2022 and the investigation already stands concluded.

Held: Parameters to be considered while deciding the prayer for bail are well laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Amarmani Tripathi [ 2005(8) SCC 21 ] -  There is no denial of the fact that the economic offences constitute a separate class of their own, but trite it is that presumption of innocence is one of the bedrocks on which the criminal jurisprudence rests - Time and again, Apex Court has reiterated the need to integrate the right of investigating agencies to have effective interrogation of the accused with the right of liberty of the accused - In the present case the investigation stands concluded and the challan stands presented, thus, there cannot be any apprehension that the petitioner shall tamper with the evidence - The maximum sentence prescribed under the Act for the offence, the petitioner has been booked is 05 years - Though non-issuance of show cause notice for adjudication of the evaded tax under Section 74 of the PGST Act cannot be a solitary ground for grant of bail, but in the present case, this fact has assumed significance in the background of the conduct of the agency having failed to lead pre-charge evidence for 06 months - Considering the cumulative effect of all these circumstances, the Court finds that the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period - Consequently, the present petition is allowed - Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - Surrender of passport shall be a pre-condition of bail - Petition allowed: High Court [para 8, 10, 13, 14]

- Petition allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1455-HC-MUM-GST

Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Present petition has been filed in relation to the procedural difficulties/objections raised with regard to distribution and eligibility of Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit of Service Tax under Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 .

Held: Court vide order dated 23rd August 2022 in the batch matters led by Unichem Laboratories Limited V/s. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.109 of 2020) and vide a separate order in Apar Industries Limited V/s. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.11539 of 2019) dated 23rd August 2022 had granted appropriate reliefs to petitioners therein who were facing similar issues with respect to transition and distribution of ISD credit - Supreme Court in the case of Filco Trade Centre - 2022-TIOL-57-SC-GST has  directed the GST Network to open the common portal to file/rectify TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a period of two months, i.e., with effect from 1st September 2022 to 31st October 2022 to enable the different private parties to avail Transitional Credit - Bench also intends to adopt the same approach in the present  petition - Petitioner t hrough its respective units/offices registered under CGST Act and/or State Acts, as the case may be, can avail this window and file GST TRAN-1/revised GST TRAN-1 at the  units/offices in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Filco Trade - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5,6]

- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1454-HC-KOL-GST

Medha Servo Drives Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax

GST - The short question arises is as to whether full tax and penalty could have been demanded from appellants on alleged ground that they contravened Section 129(1)(a) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Case of appellants is that a single invoice was raised by them to M/s. Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, carrying on operation in State of West Bengal - The goods which were to be supplied to said Public Sector Undertaking was of very huge in size and therefore, appellants had raised multiple e-weigh bills and loaded the goods into three trucks - The vehicle along with goods were intercepted by authorities - Appellants had explained that there is absolutely no mens rea on their part and there was no intention to evade payment of tax - Concerned authority is required to record the reasons in writing as to how and in what manner mens rea was established - Matter should be remanded back to Appellate Authority for fresh consideration to decide this short issue as to whether there is any mens rea on the part of appellants to evade payment of duty - Appellants have furnished a bank guarantee for entire amount of tax and penalty - Since matter is remanded back to Appellate Authority for fresh consideration, appellant is not required to keep the bank guarantee alive - Instead of bank guarantee, appellants are directed to furnish a bond to the satisfaction of concerned authority for the entire amount of tax and penalty: HC

- Matter remanded: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1453-HC-MUM-GST

Euro Pratik Sales Corporation Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner closed his business and applied for cancellation of registration which was granted by an order dated 18 July 2019 - It is the petitioner's case that at the time of cancellation, they had a deemed excise credit of a sum of Rs.39,13,025/- and they were entitled to claim transition credit u/s 140(3) of the Act; that they had applied but for various reasons such transition could not take place.

Held:  It appears that the petitioner is unable to transit the credit because their registration has been cancelled - Section 30 of the Act provides for revocation of cancellation of registration but that only envisages a situation where a registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion - Inasmuch as it does not factor in a situation as in the present case wherein the registered person has applied for cancellation and got his registration cancelled - It will be wholly unfair if the petitioner ends up having to forgo the deemed excise credit of a substantial amount of Rs.39,13,025/- - Petitioner is, therefore, directed to submit physical application for restoration of registration and after restoration the nodal officer shall forward the restoration order to GSTN and the GSTN shall ensure that the portal is open in such a way that the petitioner is able to apply for migration under TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 before 30 November 2022 - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6, 9, 10]

- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1075-CESTAT-MUM

C S Prasad Vs Addl. Director General

Cus - Though the O-I-O decides the issues against number of persons, these appeals are concerned with penalty imposed on two of departmental officers and have been listed as per direction of the bench - Appellant has placed on record the O-I-O, whereby appellant has been exonerated of charges of "abetting" in clearance of impugned goods held liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 - The crux of decision in B K Pabri 2017-TIOL-2366-CESTAT-DEL and Boria Ram 2017-TIOL-919-CESTAT-DEL is that mere failure to discharge the duties assigned in diligent manner cannot be a reason for holding the charge of "abetting" against officer of Custom for purpose of imposing penalty under section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 - Positive evidence to that effect is required to be placed and charge of abetting needs to be proved in positive manner - Tribunal is unable to find any such positive evidence or even the allegation whereby charge abetting can be sustained - During investigation, DRI has recorded the statements of large number of persons – importers, CHA, but none of the statement even make a wild suggestion to the effect that these officers had connived and abetted in act of mis-declaration - It is also worth noting that entire case of misdeclaration is based on forged documents produced for clearance of impugned goods as have been recorded by disciplinary authority in his order by relying on SCN - Charge of abetting cannot be sustained against two officers - These pronouncements should not be held to mean that officers are not guilty of dereliction of duties as assigned to them as officer of Customs, while allowing clearance of imported goods - Charges of dereliction of duty cannot be adjudicated in terms of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and need to be considered as per CCS Rules - If appellants in proceedings initiated under said Rules, are found guilty of dereliction of duties assigned in any manner, disciplinary authority is free to proceed against said officers in manner prescribed, without referring to exoneration of these officers by this order by charge of "abetting" for imposition of penalty under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT