|
2023-TIOL-111-HC-MUM-GST
Sunbright Designers Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra
GST - Petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent in attaching the bank account and for direction to allow the operation of the account - Petitioner also raises the issue of jurisdiction of the respondent inasmuch as it is contended that the petitioner is registered under the Act falling within the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017 and the respondent being officers under the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017 will not have jurisdiction over the petitioner - Counsel for Respondent submits that the petitioner has remedy by first taking recourse to rule 159(5) of the Rules.
Held: There is no reason why the Bench should not take a similar view as taken in the case of Jaychem Enterprise P Ltd. [WP 2583 of 2021 dated 8 July 2021] and ask the petitioner to approach the authority concerned u/r 159(5) of the Rules for revocation of the attachment - Contention of petitioner that the authority will not be able to decide whether it has jurisdiction is not correct and it is not the law that the moment an issue of jurisdiction is raised, the authority is rendered powerless - The grievance of the Petitioner that the bank account has remained attached for a long period of time is to be noted but partially it is the Petitioner who is to blame for not taking recourse to Rule 159(5) of the Rules - Be that as it may, since the bank account is attached in April 2022, Bench directs that if the Petitioner approaches the authority under Rule 159 (5) within one week, the authority concerned will make an endeavour to take a decision thereupon as per law, within three weeks of filing of such application - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-110-HC-AHM-GST
Secutech Automation India Pvt Ltd Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner u/s 29(2) of the Act, 2017 and order of cancellation of registration of petitioner company - Mr. S.Shah was looking after the affairs of the company and it was he who was filing the return of the company till December, 2018 - After he passed away in March, 2019, no person was appointed to look after the affairs of the company - SCN was issued on 24.05.2019 - In August, 2019 the staff of the petitioner company tried to upload the return in Form GSTR-3B for the period from 11th January, 2019, which was not being permitted - When he came to know about the cancellation of registration number and certificate with effect from 31.12.2018 and when the spam folder was checked, it was realised that the registration of the company was cancelled - As the period of 30 days had lapsed, it was not allowing to upload the application in terms of Rule 23 - As the petitioner needed to file return manually, which was not permitted by the common portal, the present application is preferred - Incidentally, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 17 January 2022.
Held: Appeal was belated by two years and one month and, hence, appellate authority is not empowered to condone the delay, even when there is justifiable cause as in the instant case as the person concerned looking after the affairs of the company, had passed away and nobody else was deputed and the email had gone into spam folder - On the ground of the order being absolutely cryptic, non-speaking and contrary to the settled position of law, the petition deserves to be allowed - Court has found the base order to be on a very weak edifice, even otherwise, keeping the issue of entitlement of the appellate authority to condone the delay, beyond the statutory powers open, for the present, the Agarwal Dyeing and Printing Works will hold the field - Petition stands allowed, quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner - Cancellation of registration is revoked - SCN dated 24.05.2019 issued u/r 22 is also quashed and set aside - However, this will not preclude the authority, if the cause will survive, by following the procedure in accordance with law: High Court [para 9, 14, 15]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-109-HC-KOL-GST
Md Yusuf Vs State Tax Officer
GST - Allegation is that teak sawn timber was transported without valid documents in a concealed manner in contravention of s.68 of the Act r/w s.138A - Prima facie conclusion arrived at by the authority that the movement of goods is considered as movement without valid documents and the good sand conveyance need to be detained - Petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 10 August 2022 passed u/s 129(1) of the Act, 2017 - Single Judge bench had held that the order of detention is an appealable order and the appellant can approach the appellate authority - Challenging the said single judge order, the present appeal is filed.
Held: Since the goods being natural produce, it is exposed to the fury of weather, there is likelihood of deterioration - Therefore, the authority shall permit the appellant to provide requisite number of tarpaulin for securing the goods so that the goods are not exposed to sun and rain - The appellant is directed to approach,within a period of one week,the authority who passed the detention order and seek to revoke order of detention by answering all the allegations which have been found and recorded in the detention order dated 10th August, 2022 - The authority is granted 10 working days time to afford a personal hearing to the appellant and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law - Appeal stands disposed of: High Court
- Appeal disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT |
|
