|
2023-TIOL-84-HC-KAR-GST
Wipro Ltd India Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Central Taxes
GST - ITC availment - Error committed by the petitioner in showing the wrong GSTIN number in the Invoices which was carried forward in the relevant Forms as that of ABB India Limited instead of the 5th respondent i.e., M/s. ABB Global Industries and Services Private Limited, is clearly a bonafide error, which has occurred due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, sufficient cause and consequently, the Circular bearing No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 would be directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case - It would be just and proper to dispose of this petition directing the respondents 1 to 3 - revenue to follow the procedure prescribed in the Circular and apply the said Circular to the facts of the instant case of the petitioner, 5th respondent - Though the Circular refers only to the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, since there are identical errors committed by the petitioner not only in respect of the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 but also in relation to the assessment year 2019-20 also, Bench is of the view that by adopting a justice oriented approach, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Circular for the year 2019-20 also - Respondents 1 to 3 are hereby directed to consider the request made by the petitioner vide letter at Annexure-D dated 06.09.2021 and proceed further in accordance with law and in terms of the Circular dated 27.12.2022 as expeditiously as possible - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6, 8, 9]
- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-83-HC-MAD-GST
Suzlon Energy Ltd Vs CTO
GST - Writ petitioner is a manufacturer and supplier of Wind Operated Electricity Generators and its parts; that with regard to one of the parts so supplied by writ petitioner, inputs procured by writ petitioner were higher than the tax rate on the product supplied by writ petitioner; that therefore, ITC stood accumulated in this inverted tax structure; that this led to writ petitioner making a refund application under Section 54 and which was rejected by the original authority but appeals against such orders was allowed by the Appellate authority and pursuant to which the petitioner filed a second set of refund applications but due to inaction in dealing with the applications, the present writ petitions have been filed seeking a mandamus to the first respondent to dispose of their representations - Counsel for respondent revenue submitted that the State is in contemplation about assailing the two orders of the appellate authority and that appeals lie to a Tribunal u/s 112 of the Act, 2017. Held: Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to direct the first respondent to take up the aforementioned representations dated 14.11.2022 and consider the same on merits after eight weeks from today i.e., after 10.03.2023 - In the interregnum, it is open to Revenue to pursue remedies available to it - When 14.11.2022 representations are taken up by the first respondent post eight weeks from today i.e., the reckoning date being 11.03.2023, the same shall be disposed of on its own merits and in accordance with law and subject, of course, to any other orders by Courts or Quasi Judicial Authorities or Tribunals as expeditiously as the business of first respondent would permit but in any event on or before 31.03.2023 - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 8, 9]
- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-82-HC-MAD-GST
Om Sakthi Construction Vs Asstt. Commissioner
GST - It is the specific case of the petitioner that an audit under s.65 of CGST and proceedings pursuant to a SCN u/s 74 r/w rule 142(1) of the Rules, 2017 cannot proceed simultaneously - Petitioner places reliance on order dated 30.09.2022 made by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in R P Build con P Ltd. - 2022-TIOL-1305-HC-KOL-GST and wherein it is viewed that since the audit proceedings under Section 65 of the Act has already commenced, it is but appropriate that the proceedings should be taken to the logical end; that scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of the Act cannot be done. Held: To be noted, in R.P. Buildcon case, Section 65 audit was commenced when Section 74 legal drill was under way - Court is of the considered view that the writ petition does not cut ice or pass muster, it can only be dismissed and the reasons are as follows - (a) Inspection was on 16.03.2020 and the first impugned notice was issued on 30.08.2022 this being a notice qua audit under Section 65 of TN-G & ST Act , the SCN dated 18.10.2022 was issued thereafter; therefore, the SCN qua S ection 74 of C-G & ST Act is post notice for audit under Section 65; this by itself douses the primary argument of the writ petitioner - (b)The argument that Section 65 leads to Section 74 does not really make any headway qua writ Court owing to the chronicle which has been set out supra - The chronicle itself will make it clear that the inspection was followed by notice qua Section 65 audit and thereafter show cause notice came to be issued - There is nothing to demonstrate that when the audit under Section 65 has been kick started by way of a notice, show cause notice under section 74 is impermissible - Therefore, it is not necessary to even dilate on the principles governing interference by a writ Court qua show cause notice - Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed: High Court [para 10, 11]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-81-HC-MUM-GST
Ramani Suchit Malushte Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner is impugning the order by which the petitioner's appeal came to be dismissed on the ground that the appeal was not filed within a period of three months provided u/s 107(1) of the Act, 2017 and even beyond the condonable period of one month - Petitioner submits that the order in original dated 14th November 2019 which was impugned in the appeal filed before Respondent No.3 has not been digitally signed and, therefore, it cannot be considered to have been issued in accordance with Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules; therefore, the time limit for filing the appeal would begin only upon digitally signed order being made available; that the signature was affixed for the first time only on 19 May 2021 when Petitioner had to get an attestation from Respondent No.4 for the purposes of filing appeal. Held: In the affidavit-in-reply it is not denied that the order in original dated 14th November 2019 was not digitally signed - Conveniently, respondent stated that petitioner cannot take stand of not receiving the signed copy because the unsigned order was admittedly received by petitioner electronically - However, if this stand of respondent has to be accepted, then the Rules which prescribe specifically that digital signature has to be put will be rendered redundant - In our view, unless digital signature is put by the issuing authority, that order will have no effect in the eyes of law - Order is quashed and set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of respondent no.3 who shall consider the appeal on merits and pass such order as deemed fit in accordance with law: High Court [para 4, 6]
- Appeal disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-10-AAR-GST
Prajapati Keval Dineshbhai
GST - Salted and flavored Potato Chips, Potato Sev (Aloo Sev ), Potato Chivda (Potato Salli Mixture), Sing Bhujiya , Sev Mamara (Roasted Puffed Rice mixed with Nylon Sev ), Chana Daal (Fried Split Bengal Gram), Gathiya , Khatta Mitha Chevda Mixture are correctly classifiable under HSN 2106 9099 and attracts GST @12%: AAR
GST - Potato starch is classifiable under 1108 1300 and attracts GST @12%: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR |
|
