|
2023-TIOL-39-SC-GST
Makhijani Pushpak Harish Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Appellant was arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 132(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - Bail was granted subject by the CJM, Vadodara subject to the condition that the appellant submits a bank guarantee of an amount of Rs.3 crores along with certain other conditions - Appellant approached the Gujarat High Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 710 of 2023 which came to be disposed of by the order dated 12.01.2023 impugned herein, whereby the High Court modified the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of an amount of Rs.3 crore by reducing it to Rs.1.5 crore - Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Held: Such pre-condition of deposit of an amount or furnishing a bank guarantee has been the subject matter of consideration by this Court in a number of cases, where condition of pre-deposit has been held to be bad - It is also pertinent to note that in the said case [ Subhash Chouhan Vs. Union of India = 2023-TIOL-16-SC-GST ], the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India/State had fairly stated that such a condition cannot be imposed while granting bail - Same view has been reaffirmed by this Court in Anantbhai Ashokbhai Shah = 2023-TIOL-15-SC-MISC - Facts of the present case being identical to the facts of the aforesaid two Criminal appeals, Bench sees no reason to deviate from the view taken - Bench is of the considered opinion that pre-condition of furnishing bank guarantee imposed by the High Court is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside - The rest of the conditions imposed for grant of bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and upheld by the High Court are hereby sustained - Applicant is directed to be released on bail - Appeal allowed: Supreme Court [para 6 to 12]
- Appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023-TIOL-476-HC-MUM-GST
Knowledge Capital Services Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017, section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner claimed a refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of the export of services amounting to Rs.9,63,033/- from April 2020 to March 2021 - Respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner on 8 July 2022, proposing to reject the refund claim for the reason alleged in the defect sheet - Petitioner submits that the defect sheet was never received by them - Respondent No.3 passed an impugned order on 25 July 2022, rejecting the refund claim, hence the present petition.
Held: There was no opportunity given to the Petitioner to rectify lacunae, and the deficiencies which are to be informed through Form GST RFD-03 were sent in a file attached in Form GST RFD- 08 - This deprived the Petitioner of submitting a fresh refund application as contemplated under Rule 90 (3) of the CGST Rules of 2017 - Apart from this prejudice to the Petitioner, there is non-adherence with the procedure envisaged under the Rules to use the correct Forms prescribed - Not only Form GST RFD-03 was not issued, but a file is sought to be attached to Form GST RFD-08, which has a different Form - Bench finds no explanation for why the deficiencies were uploaded in a separate file -The forms prescribed under the CGST Rules of 2017 governing refunds are for promoting uniformity, clarity, compliance and efficiency - The statutorily prescribed forms play a critical role in the GST system as they ensure smooth functioning and promote transparency and compliance - Attaching a file and that too in a wrong form, unless prescribed, has a potential to give rise to needless litigation - Since it is an admitted position that no hearing was given to the Petitioner before the rejection of the refund application contrary to the proviso to Rule 92(3) of the Rules, the impugned order needs to be set aside on this ground as well - Impugned order dated 25 July 2022, passed by Respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, is quashed and set aside - Matter is remanded - Exercise be carried out by Respondent No.3 within a period of twelve weeks - Writ petition is allowed: High Court [para 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20]
- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
|
|
