|
2022-TIOL-1493-HC-MAD-GST
Rayan Traders Vs Pr.Chief CGST & CE
GST - Petitioner challenges the attachment notice dated 27.12.2019 issued to HDFC Bank, Korattur Branch in form GST DRC-13 - Vide the attachment notice, the bank has been directed to withhold the amount upto a sum of Rs.74,52,943/- and pay the same forthwith to the Government.
Held: It is an admitted position in this case that there has been no order of assessment or any other order passed under the applicable provisions making a determination of the aforesaid amount as being 'due' from the petitioner - Neither has the petitioner been assessed under Sections 73 or 74, nor has there been any order passed reversing the Input Tax Credit that is claimed by the petitioner - In such circumstances, it is the considered view of the Bench that the impugned notice has no legs to stand - A statement recorded cannot substitute a determination of liability under an order of assessment or any other order passed under the applicable provisions under the Act - Impugned Notice dated 27.12.2019 is set aside in light of there being no statutory sanction for the issuance of the same in terms of Section 83 of the Act - Petition allowed: High Court [para 3, 4, 7]
- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1492-HC-CHHATTISGARH-GST
Jagdalpur Motors Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to reset/ reopen the GST portal for filing the GST TRAN-1 form and in effect allow the petitioner to rectify the inadvertent mistake of its consultant or accept the physical copy of the Form GST TRAN-1 and allow eligible transitional credit to the petitioner as per Section 140 of CGST Act and credit such amount in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner as Input Tax Credit of GST - Facts of the case is that the petitioner's company on account of certain technical glitches that arose after the introduction of the GST Law were not able to submit their TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms within the stipulated period - Based on Supreme Court order dated 22.07.2022 - 2022-TIOL-57-SC-GST , the petitioner did submit their TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, however, inadvertently when the said form was filled, in the column showing total outstanding credit inputs the petitioner's consultant inadvertently filled it as NIL and immediately the form got frozen - Thereafter, the petitioner tried his best for resetting the same and for revising the same but under the system it was not permissible - P etitioner had moved an application seeking permission to revise the form before the authorities concerned by way of an application dated 27.10.2022 which till date has not been considered and which led to the filing of the present writ petition - Counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the order of the Supreme Court [in Filco Trade Center 2022-TIOL-57-SC-GST & 2022-TIOL-75-SC-GST ] followed by the subsequent Circular No. 180/12/2022 dated 09.09.2022 are all passed under exceptional circumstances - Therefore, it has to be accepted that it is applicable only as a one time measure [clause 4.6.2 refers] and, therefore, the parties cannot be permitted to revise their declaration in the given factual backdrop. Held: Petitioner became entitled for submitting his Form TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 in terms of the order of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Filco Trade Centre (Supra) - It is also an admitted factual position that the period for submission of the form TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 on portal is open up till 30.11.2022 - Under the said circumstances it cannot be said that the provision under Rule 120A would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner or any other similarly placed person - The submission of the Union of India, if at all, if has to be accepted, then the circular dated 09.09.2022 would have an overriding effect over the statute which otherwise may not be permissible under the law - All circulars and instructions issued by the respondents can be only clarificatory in nature and it cannot dilute the statutory provision or for that matter making the statutory provision redundant - In the instant case, the circular dated 09.09.2022 is primarily a clarification instruction and the same cannot have an overriding effect over the Act or the Rules - When Rule 120A provides for revising of the declaration in form GST TRAN-1 once, only because the portal has been opened as a one time measure, by itself, cannot be construed that the Rule 120A cannot be made applicable when the period for submission of Form TRAN-1 is still open in terms of the order of the Supreme Court, even as on date - The Supreme Court also has, nowhere held that the applicability of Rule 120A would not be available to those persons who are to submit their Form TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 in terms of its order - It is ordered that the respondents No.1 & 2 may instruct the respondent No.5 to open the portal so far as the petitioner is concerned, for once, in terms of Rule 120A permitting the petitioner to revise the declaration and thereafter permit him to submit the same and complete the filing - Writ petition stands disposed of: High Court [para 13, 14, 15]
- Petition disposed of: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-131-AAR-GST
S R K Plastics Pvt Ltd
GST - Paper based corrugated sheets is classifiable under heading 4808 and the rate of tax on such supply is 6% under CGST & 6% under SGST: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
|
|
