2023-TIOL-664-HC-MUM-CUS
Nitish Kumar Roy Vs UoI
Cus - The Applicants are exporters of carpets - Allegations against them are that they had overvalued the goods which were being exported and had claimed higher rate of duty drawback and other incentives - Adjudicating Authority has held that the value declared in 14 shipping bills appears to be correct transaction value in terms of section 14(1) of Customs Act, 1962 whereas claim in respect of 12 shipping bills has been reduced - The question whether other bills reflect correct value or have been overvalued, is yet to be adjudicated - There is no material on record to indicate that applicants had availed higher rate of duty drawback on shipping bills - Applicants have appeared before Authority and their statement has been recorded on various dates - This would not be a case for custodial interrogation - Applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds with one or two sureties in like amount and shall co-operate with investigation and report to concerned Investigating Officer/DRI as and when required: HC
- Applications disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-659-HC-DEL-GST Al Amanath Haj Services India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitions are relating to various Haj Group Organizers (HGOs) and allotment of quota for Haj pilgrimage 2023.
Held: Clause in the 2023 Haj Policy would reveal that GST registration is mandatory and payment of GST is also mandatory - If there is any uncertainty in respect of the amount of GST to be paid, the same would be an issue which would have to be considered by the GST authorities and, in the opinion of the Court, cannot operate as a disqualification of the abovementioned Petitioner HGOs - The percentage of GST liable to be deposited, the uncertainty about the exemption issue, the manner in which GST would have to be calculated i.e., whether on the margins or on total turnover are all intricate issues which the GST authorities would be examining qua each of the HGOs - The same would depend on the period, applicable rates etc. - So long as the HGOs have a GST registration and have an explanation for the manner in which they have calculated and deposited GST prior to their filing of the application for allotment of quotas, disqualifying them would be unjust - The Ministry of Minority Affairs is not the competent authority to deal with these issues, though an attempt has been made to explain that the eligible HGOs have made full GST deposits - In respect of quota allocation, directions have been issued - These orders are passed in the unique facts and circumstances and shall not act as a precedent: High Court [para 28, 31, 34]
- Application disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-658-HC-AHM-GST
Sarvoday Impex Vs UoI
GST - A SCN in Form of GST REG-17/31 came to be issued by authorities while exercising power under Section 29 of the Act read with Rule 22(1) of CGST Rules, 2017 - It is submitted that SCN simply states the reason for issuance of notice as Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts - Respondents have not provided in details to petitioner, how the petitioner has committed fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; while obtaining the registration, no documents were supplied to petitioner alongwith said SCN - From the order in Aggrawal Dyeing , it reveals that, in said case as similar type of contentions were raised on behalf of respondent - However, this Court has quashed and set aside the similar type of SCN issued to concerned petitioner for cancellation of registration - Matter is squarely covered by said order passed by this Court, therefore, impugned SCN is set aside on similar grounds - However, liberty is granted to respondent authorities to issue fresh notice with particulars of reasons incorporated with details and thereafter to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law - The concerned respondent is hereby directed to restore the registration of petitioner: HC
- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-657-HC-GUW-GST
Marjit Basumatary Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner has inter alia assailed the legality and validity of the show-cause notice dated 16.09.2022 - Petitioner further submits that they had made a representation before the respondent no. 4 demanding copy of certain documents, which were not furnished till date and hence, due to non-providing of documents, the petitioner has been prevented from submitting an exhaustive show-cause reply - Counsel for respondent Revenue submits that respondent was not liable to disclose the materials which have given him the "reasons to believe", which was his subjective satisfaction, based on cogent and reliable materials; nonetheless, the particulars of escapement of tax was disclosed to the petitioner vide the show-cause notice; that the petitioner was not entitled to any more material than what was already disclosed.
Held: Court is inclined to examine the records relating to show-cause notice for the purpose of examining whether "reasons to believe" exists or it is a mere pretence -Therefore, the respondent no. 4 is directed to produce the records relating to show-cause notice dated 16.09.2022 - As an interim measure and till the next date of listing, the respondent no. 4 is directed to defer the proceeding: High Court [para 11, 12, 14]
- Interim order passed: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-82-AAR-GST
Sanjeevani Psychiatric Clinic
GST - Applicant, Sanjeevani Psychiatric clinic is registered as a partnership firm - C linical Establishment is registered for providing medical services as a Single Specialty under Allopathy System of Medicine by Dr. Rinet Sonia Dsouza (MBBS, MD) - A pplicant is providing Treatment of patients suffering from substance use disorder (SUD) (addiction of drugs) in the state of Rajasthan - currently the applicant is involved in providing Outpatient Facility - A patient is treated as outpatient where the patient is not admitted, however the treatment is provided at the Clinical Establishment as out-patient for treatments and procedures that require no admission - F ees is collected from the patient after dispensing of medicines - Fees may differ from patient to patient depending upon the examination, prescription and the duration of prescription as advised by the Psychiatrist - Applicant seeks to know as to whether the supply of services by treatment of patients suffering from SUD as out-patient is exempt under entry 74(a) of notification no. 12/2017-CGST Rate - Applicant is unregistered with the department so no comments were sought from field formations.
Held: Patients are being examined by applicant through its Single Specialty Psychiatrist under Allopathy System of Medicine by Dr Rinet Sonia Dsouza (MBBS, MD), who gives medicines to outdoor patients of applicant - There is no dispute that treatment of SUD Patients by the applicant is supply Sec. 7(1) of CGST Act, 2017 and falls under the ambit of GST - Applicant is involved in treating outdoor patients only and medicines are being provided by applicant only as per requirement of patient - Thus, applicant is involved in supply of service as well supply of goods i.e medicine - In this case, Authority observes that medicines are provided by applicant to outdoor patient - Applicant claimed that these medicines are not available in market thus the medicine supplied by them is a composite supply, however, no supporting evidences are provided that the medicine forms part of counselling services provided by the applicant, therefore, it cannot be said that the supplies made by the applicant are composite supply - Well-supported scientific evidence shows that the substance use disorder treatment and mental health services from mainstream health care have traditional separation -Substance misuse has traditionally been seen as a social or criminal problem and prevention services are not typically considered a responsibility of healthcare systems - Thus considering definition of healthcare services as narrated in Notification no. 12/2017-CGST(Rate), Authority holds that substance use disorder is out of ambit of healthcare services and supply of services by treatment of patients suffering from SUD as out-patient don't fall under the definition of healthcare services so same is not exempt under entry 74(a) of notification no. 12/2017-CGST Rate - N one of the pronouncements submitted by applicant squarely covers the present question of law in respect of applicability of GST - Held, therefore, that supply of services by treatment of patients suffering from SUD as out-patient is not exempt under entry 74(a) of notification no. 12/2017-CGST Rate : AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2023-TIOL-81-AAR-GST
Pandey Traders
GST - Applicant has sought an advance ruling on the following questions - Whether mixing of scent (mixture of various perfumes and not jarda scent) in raw unmanufactured tobacco dust by the Applicant after procuring the same from various traders, and its subsequent sale to customers on B to B and B to C basis, after ensuring packing from third party, would change the character of unmanufactured tobacco to manufactured tobacco? & Whether processing of unmanufactured tobacco dust by add mixing the scent (mixture of various perfumes and not jarda scent) would change the character of unmanufactured tobacco to manufactured tobacco?
Held: It is evident that the raw material undergoes a set of processes and emerges as a distinct product which makes it marketable/consumable for the chewing needs - Therefore, the product supplied by the applicant is "Manufactured Tobacco product for Chewing" - Once it is held that the product is 'Manufactured Chewing tobacco', the classification of the product is under CTH 2403 9910 which specifies 'Chewing Tobacco' under the head "2403 - Other Manufactured tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes…." - Mixing of tobacco dust with scent (mixture of various perfumes and not jarda scent) is a cumulative process of manufacturing and results in different and irreversible goods i.e. manufactured chewing tobacco and classifiable under the specific heading under CTH 2403 9910: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR |
