|
2023-TIOL-12-HC-AHM-GST
Aartos International LLP Vs Deputy Commissioner (Customs)
GST – Non-grant of IGST Refund on Export invoice dated 06.02.2020 - It is the say of the respondent that "since the process of sanction of refund claim is automatic and system driven, as and when the Shipping Bill will be available again in Scroll PC; the same will be taken up for processing for refund and the relevant amount of IGST paid with respect to each Shipping Bill or Bill of Export shall be electronically credited to the petitioner's Bank account."
Held: Admittedly, in the present case, it appears to be the difficulty at the end of the GST network or some error in the software itself which would require a cure - Finding fault with the officer concerned also will not help as they are largely dependent on the network - On one hand there is a laudable objective of making it all system driven and on the other hand the limitations of the system which are otherwise required to be addressed to at the level of the GSTN - There is some kind of apathy - Bench would, therefore, also recommend that if the authority concerned deems it appropriate, let there be a direct communication also with the GSTN in the portal itself which could be also response based - Therefore, instead of the individual department pleading through their senior through the GSTN, the Assessee of those consultants and others could communicate with the GSTN on portal if a feature like "MAY I HELP YOU" is created by the authority on due deliberation or through the "Grievance Redressal Mechanism" - Essentially, this is for the purpose of lessening the Court work also as per such details the Assessees are not to be dragged to the Court when in fact there is nothing for the Court to adjudicate except pointing out to the limitation of the software of the respondent department - Let the refund of IGST be paid for the amount of Rs.19,94,994/- with interest at the rate of 6% and with all consequential benefits within a period of two weeks - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 9, 10, 11]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-11-HC-AHM-GST
Daduram Metals Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner seeks lifting of attachment of his bank accounts which order u/s 83 was passed on 30.06.2022 in the FORM GST DRC-22. Held: Noticing the factum of attachment of the bank accounts during the search proceeding, without any subjective satisfaction and the issue of passing of provisional order under section 83 before even such proceedings were completed, without there being any pendency of the proceedings, this court in the final hearing can adjudicate all these issues, but the court needs to indulge at this stage - On filing an Undertaking before this Court of maintaining the balance of Rs.5,88,153/- in savings account and balance of Rs.88,843/- in current account the petitioner is permitted to operate his current account upon the attachment being lifted on his current account: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Interim order passed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-10-HC-AHM-GST
Gurukrupa Enterprise Vs Superintendent
GST - Petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Excise and order passed by Superintendent u/s 29(2) of the Act, 2017 , so also the cancellation of registration. Held: Order for cancellation of registration dated 22.06.2020 is quite cryptic - It hardly gives any detail, which is otherwise necessary - Petitioner appears to be someone, who is keen to continue his business and the State's obligation is to ensure the implementation of the law, but at the same time not to thwart, in any manner, the business prospects of the citizens and, therefore, acceding to the request, Bench is required to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the order of the appellate authority dated 31.01.2022 as well as order dated 18.03.2021 cancelling the registration of the certificate of the petitioner and also the show cause notice dated 22.06.2020 - The petitioner since has already paid the outstanding taxes, the penalty to the tune of Rs.2,94,520/- and the same being by self-assessment, he shall also file an undertaking before this Court to fulfil his obligations once the assessment is completed in eight weeks - Order of cancellation of registration is quashed and set aside along with the order dated 31.01.2022 - The respondent is directed to forthwith restore the registration of the petitioner: High Court [para 7, 13, 14]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-09-HC-TELANGANA-GST
Greenfinch Team Management Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner challenges the provisional attachment of their bank account made on 02.12.2019 and again on 08.12.2021 u/s 83 of the Act, 2017 - Petitioner further submits that by lapse of time, both the provisional attachment orders are no longer valid as on today - Counsel for Respondent Revenue submits that since investigations are ongoing against the petitioner, the bank account was provisionally attached; that if the attachment is lifted there is a possibility of petitioner withdrawing the amount and which may cause prejudice to the department. Held: Attachment of bank account of a taxable person is a serious measure which has the effect of not only adversely affecting property rights of such person but is also an intrusion into his privacy - However, being a coercive provision legislature has ensured that duration of provisional attachment does not exceed a period of one year - By its very nature, provisional attachment cannot be for an indefinite period - The two words ‘provisional' and ‘attachment' read in conjunction can only mean a ‘temporary attachment' - After expiry of a period of one year, such provisional attachment would cease to have effect - Having regard to the legislative mandate, it is evident that both the provisional attachment orders dated 02.12.2019 and 08.12.2021 have spent their force - Such provisional attachment orders cannot, therefore, be allowed to continue beyond the period prescribed under the statute - Consequently, provisional attachment orders dated 02.12.2019 and 08.12.2021 passed by respondent No.2 are hereby set aside and quashed - Writ petition is allowed: High Court [para 9, 10, 11, 12, 14]
- Petition allowed: TELANGANA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-08-HC-AHM-GST
Mahendra Janubhai Zala Vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax
GST - Petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent authority essentially on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and thereby cancelling their registration. Held: The very purpose of issuance of show cause notice is to avail an opportunity to the parties - The very purpose of the notice get frustrated once there is such cryptic notice which makes hardly any sense - On the very basis of the hollow foundation, the notice and the impugned order need to be interfered with - Following the Coordinate Bench's decision in case of Aggarwal Dyeing & Printing Works - 2022-TIOL-504-HC-AHM-GST , this petition is ALLOWED solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice - The show cause notice and the impugned order are quashed and set aside granting a liberty to the respondent No.2 to issue a fresh show cause notice with particular reasons incorporated with details and thereafter to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant and to pass appropriate speaking order on merit - With the aforesaid, the GST Registration Number of the applicant stands restored forthwith - Cost is quantified to the sum of Rs.25,000/- which shall be borne by the department to be paid to the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association Welfare Fund: High Court [para 7, 9, 10, 11]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT |
|
