2023-TIOL-400-HC-DEL-GST
Aditya Polymers Vs Commissioner of Delhi GST
GST - Cancellation of GST registration - Petitioner carries on business as sole proprietor of Aditya Polymers - Petitioner stated that they stopped carrying on business from her principal place of business in Delhi and therefore, had not filed any returns - The petitioner is not aggrieved by cancellation of its GST registration and states that in any event her GST registration was required to be cancelled on account of her discontinuing its business and shifting to Kanpur - They are essentially aggrieved on account of cancellation of its registration with retrospective effect - In terms of Section 29(2) of CGST Act, proper officer is empowered to cancel registration from any such date as he may deem fit including from any retrospective date - However, selecting a date from which to cancel the registration cannot be arbitrary - It is essential that exercise of powers to cancel registration ab initio, must be based on material on record and some rationale - Further, taxable person must be put to notice of proposed action to cancel registration from a retrospective date so as to provide an opportunity to said person to show cause why such cancellation should not be from a retrospective date - SCN issued to petitioner did not mention that proper officer proposed to cancel registration with retrospective effect - Thus, petitioner had no opportunity to address any proposed action of cancellation of registration ab initio - Petitioner submits that they would have no objection if order cancelling petitioner's GST registration is sustained albeit with effect from 11.12.2020 i.e. date of SCN instead from 01.07.2017, that is from the date when such registration was granted - Respondent is also agreeable to the same - Petition is disposed of with the direction that cancellation of petitioner's GST registration would take effect from 11.12.2020 and not from 01.07.2017 - Respondents are not precluded from initiating any action for recovery of any tax, interest or penalty or from initiating any other action that may be warranted in accordance with law: HC
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-399-HC-KOL-GST
J K Jain Buildtech India Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner
GST - The principal ground on which the petitioner was defeated before the appellate authority was that the petitioner could not produce the relevant invoices in physical form - Petitioner submitted that sub-Rule (1)(a) to the said Rule 138A of the said 2017 Rules does not provide for production of the relevant invoice in physical form and whenever a person-in-charge of the conveyance carries the same, even in a electronic/digital form or in his mobile or in such devices carried by him, the same would suffice and the authority could not have claimed for production of the invoice in physical form - Counsel for respondent revenue submitted that from a reading of the provision laid down under sub-Rule 138A, it would be evident that, the person-in-charge of the conveyance/vehicle should carry the invoice also in physical form for verification by the respondent authority, if required; that since in the instant case, the person-in-charge of the concerned conveyance was not carrying the invoice in physical form, the appeal was rightly rejected.
Held: Expression used in the heading of the Rule 138A is clear that "documents and devices to be carried by a person-in-charge of the conveyance" which included under sub-Rule (1)(a), the invoice - It is trite that the provision in a taxing statute has to be construed strictly and no benevolent interpretation is available while construing taxing statute - When the said provision specifically provided for that documents and devices are to be carried by the person-in-charge of a conveyance, including the invoice, this clearly means that the invoice has to be carried in physical form and if required shall be produced in its physical form - Court is of the firm opinion that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to produce the relevant invoice/invoices before the statutory appellate authority, i.e., the respondent no.2 before taking a final decision on the issue to subserve justice to the petitioner also - Petition disposed of: High Court
- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-46-AAR-GST
Marubeni India Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant has been approached by a customer outside India ('Overseas Customer') for supply of certain goods which will be domestically procured from vendors located in India - The purchase order for such goods would be issued by the Overseas Customer to the Applicant, who, in turn, would place a back-to-back order for procurement of the required goods upon domestic manufacturer/vendor - Applicant, for ease of business and logistical convenience, would instruct the Indian manufacturer to ship the goods from its location/factory directly to the location of the Overseas Customer and accordingly the goods would be shipped from the Indian Manufacturer's premises to a foreign destination without the goods being physically delivered by the Indian manufacturer to the applicant - The Indian Manufacturer, as part of the contractual arrangement is responsible for undertaking the applicable Customs Duty compliances such as documentation for outbound customs clearance as Exporter and filing of Bill of Lading for transportation of goods to the Overseas Customer on the direction of the Applicant - Applicant would hand over the Bill of lading and GST invoice to the overseas customer so as to allow the overseas customer to receive the shipment from overseas customer's country port - The Indian Manufacturer, in the above transaction, would not, at any point, be issuing any invoice to the overseas customer nor be communicating directly / indirectly with the overseas customer - Applicant has sought a ruling on the following question - Whether the supply of goods from the Applicant to the overseas customer is taxable under GST as a zero rated supply or not?
Held : Since the manufacturer/vendor files the shipping bill as exporter and also gets the bill of lading issued to him, he is the owner of the goods and holds the title of goods till they cross the customs frontiers of India - In effect, he [the manufacturer] exports the goods in terms of Section 2(5) of the IGST Act, 2017 - Therefore, in the first transaction of supply of goods by the manufacturer to the applicant, the place of supply of goods shall be the location outside India in terms of Section 11(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 - Insofar as the second transaction involving the supply of the same goods by the applicant to overseas customer, it is observed that the goods are supplied from a location outside India to a location outside India, i.e., the supply of goods is from a place in the non-taxable territory to another place in the non-taxable territory without such goods entering into India - The said transaction is covered under Entry 7 of Schedule III of CGST Act, 2017 as a transaction which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2023-TIOL-45-AAR-GST
JCP Agro Process Pvt Ltd
GST - In case of purchase of tobacco leaves/ bhukko from the agriculturist, the applicant is liable to pay GST on RCM basis at 5%: AAR
GST - Applicant is liable to pay GST on forward charge basis at 5% in respect of trading of tobacco leaves/ bhukko subject to the condition that they are engaged in trading on as such basis i.e. without undertaking any further process on the same: AAR
GST - In case of supply of unmanufactured tobacco leaf consequent to coating the same with natural edible gum, the applicant is liable to pay GST at 28% - However, in case of supply of the said coated tobacco to the customers in gunny bag with their name being printed/mentioned on the gunny bags, the applicant would be liable to pay GST at 28% along with 71% compensation cess: AAR
GST - The applicant is liable for payment of GST at the rate of 12 % on the job work process of coating done in respect of tobacco leaves supplied by other registered persons: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR |
