ST - Definition of taxable services was expanded with effect from 1.7.2010, therefore, demands for the earlier period cannot sustain: SC

GST - 'Sneha', 'Snehalata ' and ' Snehadhara ' package services of regular medical monitoring along with other logistic support provided by start-up to its members - Supply is not exempted but chargeable @18%: AAR

GST - Supply of Parking space along with apartment is not a composite supply - such supply of car parking space is taxable @18%: AAR

GST - Post Occupation Certificate receipt, supply of parking space with apartment is NOT non-taxable: AAR

GST - Registration Cancellation - Officers should carefully pen orders and not rely on system generated ones - Those who are willing to be part of tax regime should be given, as far as possible, an opportunity to do so: HC

GST - Once order has been passed u/s 129(3), the appropriate remedy is to challenge by way of filing an appeal - Petition dismissed: HC

Cus - Seizure of goods - It cannot be said that respondents were solely responsible for the delay - No orders can be passed directing respondent to pay demurrage charges: HC

2023-TIOL-87-HC-DEL-GST

Rekha Saxena Vs CCGST

GST - Petition is filed quashing the orders dated 29.09.2022 and 16.09.2019  - Petitioner also seeks an order or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondents to revoke the impugned order dated 16.09.2019 and restore the GST registration of the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition.

Held: Record shows that the order of cancellation of registration dated 16.09.2019 has been passed without due application of mind - Inasmuch as there are two contradictory statements contained in the order in the sense that the order begins by referring to a reply dated 12.09.2019 and then goes on to say that no reply has been filed - Petitioner has also not covered herself with glory either inasmuch as it appears that the petitioner filed an appeal against this order dated 16.09.2019 only on 24.08.2022, after a delay of nearly 2 years and 8 months from the date when the order was passed - Appellate authority dismissed the appeal principally on the ground that it was barred by limitation - Bench is  of the view that orders cancelling registration are a serious matter, they impact the registrants, and therefore, the officer concerned should carefully pen down the orders, and not rely on the system generated orders - It appears that the order dated 16.09.2019 was framed without due application of mind - Given the statement made by the petitioner that they are willing to pay tax as well as interest and fine,  Bench is inclined to give another opportunity to the petitioner to make course correction - Those who are willing to be part of the tax regime should be given, as far as possible, an opportunity to do so - Impugned orders dated 29.09.2022 and 16.09.2019 are set aside - Matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to examine the same on merits after the petitioner deposits the tax, along with interest and fine - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 11, 12, 12,1, 13.1]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-86-HC-ALL-GST

Mongia Steel Ltd Vs State of UP

GST - Petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings initiated in pursuance of notice dated 13 February 2018 by which the vehicle carrying the goods was detained - Petitioner also prays for refund of amount of tax deposited - Respondent submits that the proceedings that were initiated was concluded by passing of order u/s 129(3) of the Act, 2017 and against which the petitioner had ready of appeal u/s 107 of the Act.

Held: In the opinion of the Bench, nothing survives as the order having been passed against petitioner way back on 18 February 2018 and the petitioner had appropriate remedy to challenge the same by filing appeal - Moreover, once demand has been raised after passing of order by the competent authority, no question arises for refund of the amount - Petition is dismissed: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Petition dismissed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-12-AAR-GST

Snehador Social And Health Care Support LLP

GST - Applicant, a start-up LLP, provides services to its members under three packages namely 'Sneha', " Snehalata ' and ' Snehadhara ' for which member(s) (either as single or couple) are required to pay annual registration fee, quarterly fee along with a refundable security deposit - Services of regular medical monitoring along with other logistic support provided by the applicant to senior citizens at their door step does not qualify for exemption and the same is liable to tax @ 18% vide serial number 31 Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Supply by way of healthcare services qualifies for exemption under serial number 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 only if the same is provided by a clinical establishment, an authorised medical practitioner or para-medics - Admittedly, the applicant doesn't fall under any of the aforesaid categories of suppliers and the services provided by the applicant, therefore, fail to qualify as exempted service: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2023-TIOL-11-AAR-GST

Eden Real Estates Pvt Ltd

GST - Supply of services of right to use car parking space is a separate supply and not to be construed as a composite supply of construction of residential apartment services - supply would be taxable @ 18%: AAR

GST - Apartments sold after receipt of completion certificate - Amounts collected for right to use of car parking space will not be treated as non-GST supply - GST payable on such services: AAR

GST - Even if the customer had not opted for car parking space at the time of purchase of apartment but sought the same after the apartment had received Occupation certificate, yet tax is payable on such supply of services of right to use of car parking space: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2023-TIOL-09-SC-ST

CCE Vs Konkan Marine Agencies

ST - CESTAT had allowed the assesses appeal in these cases on the ground that the definition of taxable services was expanded with effect from 1.7.2010 - One of the grounds which persuaded the CESTAT to hold what it did was that the period of demand was prior to the amendment to the definition - in this case for the period 2002-2003 to 2006; period 2004-2005 to 2006-2007; i.e. much before 01.07.2010 - Moreover, order in Velgi P. And Sons (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. = 2007-TIOL-1452-CESTAT-AHM relied upon by CESTAT was carried in appeal by Revenue and the Supreme Court vide order dated 24.03.2008 in CA No. 2429-30/2008 had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the CESTAT - Following order made by this Court in CA Nos. 2429-30/2008, the present appeal(s) has/have to suffer the same fate - Accordingly Revenue appeal(s) is/are dismissed: Supreme Court

- Appeals dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-85-HC-DEL-CUS

Floor Covers Vs Pr.CC

Cus - Petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents to release the consignment comprising of "Knotted Woollen Carpets" imported from the United States of America on 10.08.2021; direct Respondents to either pay themselves or to waive the payment of demurrage, detention and any other charges - Counsel for the respondent submits that the detailed investigation has been carried out and it is found that no business activities are being carried out by the petitioner company from the declared premises; that the present case is one of import of mis-declared goods in the name of non-existing entity and is not a genuine import being in violation of Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992; that the order for seizure of the goods was, thereafter, passed on 09.02.2022; that extension of time limit for issuance of Show Cause Notice by a period of six months was also sought, which was granted by the Competent Authority; that SCN was issued on 11.08.2022; that Department cannot be faulted for any delay in either passing the seizure order or issuing the Show Cause Notice and the delay has occurred because of non-cooperation of the petitioner.

Held: As pointed out by the parties, the request for provisional release of the consignment was also considered and an order dated 20.09.2022, has already been passed, thereby, provisionally releasing the consignment - In the present case, prima facie , the petitioner has not responded to the various letters and summons issued by the respondent - Therefore, it cannot be said on the basis of the record available in the present proceedings that the respondents were solely responsible for the delay caused - Therefore, no orders can be passed directing the concerned respondent to pay the demurrage charges - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 12, 14]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT