|
2023-TIOL-669-HC-AHM-VAT
Sky Industries Ltd Vs State of Gujarat
Whether since amnesty scheme is applicable to all pending cases, the officers acting under the relevant statutes are expected to respect the object of the scheme and to ensure that assessees get the benefit under the scheme - YES: HC
Whether when bona fide request is made by assessee to adjourn hearing of case with view to enable him to avail benefit of amnesty scheme, then concerned officer is duty bound to respect such request - YES: HC
- Assessee's petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-668-HC-P&H-GST
State of Punjab Vs Mandeep Singh
GST - Petitioner-State assails order passed by Additional Sessions Judge vide which an application filed by respondent seeking release of goods seized by the police on Supardari has been accepted - Facts are that a FIR came to be lodged pursuant to receipt of secret information to the effect that Jagsir Singh and his son Mandeep Singh were proceeding from Haryana- Delhi side and had concealed goods in their vehicles which were without any bill and that the said persons, who are running Delhi Malwa Transport Company, thus have been evading payment of tax in connivance with officials of Excise and Taxation Department - Checking was conducted and the police intercepted three vehicles which were carrying various articles/goods and some of which were without bills - Matter is still under investigation - Assistant Commissioner, State Tax has filed an affidavit but has not clarified as to whether any action has been taken under the GST Act, 2017 - Respondent moved an application before Special Judge seeking release of the seized articles which were not having any bill, on supardari - Respondent clarifies that he is not the owner of the goods but claims possession of the gods in the capacity of a transporter.
Held: Trial Court has accepted the application on the premises that the applicant "claims" himself to be the owner of the goods which in fact is an incorrect observation inasmuch as there is no specific averment as regards ownership of goods in the application made by the respondent for release of the articles on supardari - In any case, it goes without saying that the articles, some of which would be of semi-perishable nature ought to be released on supardari lest the value of the same may be drastically diminished - Since, no person has come forward to stake his claim qua ownership of the said goods and on the other hand the transporter has come forward to seek possession of the goods on supardari, the application in this regard can be accepted and deserves to be accepted - However, Court is of the opinion that some strict conditions need to be imposed for the purpose of releasing the said goods on supardari - Conditions laid down accordingly - Petition stands disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7, 9]
- Petition disposed of: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-667-HC-MP-GST
KIA Motors India Pvt Ltd Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
GST - Petitioner assails the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Jt. Commission) partly allowing the appeal of petitioner-assessee by reducing the tax levied from Rs.8,40,000/- to Rs.5,40,000/- and the corresponding penalty from Rs.8,40,000/- to Rs.5,40,000/- while setting aside the Cess of Rs.6,60,000/- and penalty of Rs.6,60,000/- - Sole argument of petitioner is that the demo vehicle was transported in the State of Madhya Pradesh not for sale and, therefore, was not exigible to GST - Counsel for Revenue while relying on the provisions of s.129 of the Act and Rule 138 of the GST Rules submits that movement of goods exceeding the value of Rs.50,000/-, even if they do not qualify the definition of supply become exigible to GST.
Held: Perusal of Rule 138(1)(ii) makes it clear that causing of movement of a goods exceeding the value of Rs.50,000/-, even for the reasons other than supply, makes it incumbent upon the supplier to inform about the supply of goods in Form-A GST, EWB-01 electronically on the common portal along with other information as required - It is not disputed that no such information as mandatory in Rule 138(1) of GST Rules, was given by the petitioner supplier - It is obvious that in the absence of information given, the entry of demo car into the State of Madhya Pradesh renders it exigible to GST - Court does not find any fault or jurisdictional error in the order of appellate authority dated 23.12.2019. Therefore, this writ petition stands dismissed: High Court [para 5.1, 6, 7, 8]
- Petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-666-HC-P&H-GST
Amrinder Singh Vs State of Punjab
GST - Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail - Case of the department is that a n investigation into the business activities of the firms revealed that a group of persons have colluded and connived with each other to make a network of fake firms and defraud the state exchequer - All mentioned individuals have made a total of 40 firms and have evaded tax amounting to Rs. 122.28 Crores - Common Email-ids, Phone numbers and PAN cards have been used in all these firms to get registrations and pass on the fraudulent Input tax Credit (ITC) to various beneficiary firms - No tax has been ever paid in the inward supply chain of these firms and a mechanism has been devised by all these individuals to cover the movement of clandestine goods with fake invoices so that fraudulent ITC could be availed for adjustment against the output tax liability - Further bank accounts given/uploaded at the GSTN Portal of these firms are different than the bank accounts through which money transaction has happened and even parallel and fake bank accounts have been opened to withdraw the cash in some of these firms - It is also pertinent to mention that huge cash has been collected/ withdrawn from the bank accounts by same and common persons - Accordingly, complaint came to be filed under sections 132(1)(a), (b) and (c) of CGST Act, 2017 and Punjab GST Act, 2017 and arrests were made - Petitioner's counsel submits that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Maninder Sharma, Vinod Kumar, Sunny Mehta and Sandeep Singh have been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 31.08.2022; that the petitioner was in custody since 13.03.2021 - Revenue counsel while not disputing the facts contends that the serious nature of the allegations does not entitle the petitioner for grant of bail.
Held: Grant or refusal of bail lies in the discretion of the Court -However, bail is not to be denied to satisfy the collective sentiments of a community or as a punitive measure - Denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule - Given the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2021 and is in custody ever since, in a case where the maximum sentence that could be awarded was 05 years, further incarceration of the petitioner is not required, more so when his co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 31.08.2022 - In view of the aforementioned, further incarceration of the petitioner would be wholly unnecessary - Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the aforementioned petitions are allowed and the petitioner-Amrinder Singh, son of Gurnam Singh is ordered to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - Petitions stand disposed of: High Court [para 7, 8, 9, 10, 13]
- Petition disposed of: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-665-HC-MAD-GST
Ajay Agency Vs STO
GST - An order had been placed by the petitioner for a ‘Petrol Power Weeder' on Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited situated in Kolhapur District in Maharashtra - Consignor had booked a lorry for road transport - The tenure of the E-Way Bill was for the period 28.02.2023 to 05.03.2023 - Upon entry into the State of Tamil Nadu, it is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle had had a puncture and thus further transportation was delayed - Since 05.03.2023 was a Sunday and the vehicle was, ostensibly, in a remote place, no mechanic was available - On 06.03.2023, the vehicle is stated to have been repaired and made ready for transport - Vehicle was intercepted by the Roving Squad - In the present case, the E-Way Bill expired at 12.00 a.m on 05.03.2023 - Thus, extension of the same should have been sought within eight hours, which is prior to 8.00 a.m on 06.03.2023 - However, the vehicle was intercepted at 10.00 a.m. with an expired e- way bill - In the present case, the officer has levied penalty at the rate 200% of Rs.3,68,640/- - Petitioner is before the High Court and draws attention to the Circular no. 10/2019 dated 31.05.2019 which deals with the circumstances where penalty up to Rs.5000/- shall be levied.
Held: It is appropriate that the appellate authority look into the matter, specifically the genuineness of the explanation put forth by the petitioner in regard to the on-road delay allegedly suffered by the consignment, and take a considered view, after taking into account all applicable facts and circumstances as well as the Circulars issued, as applicable and in accordance with law - Bench is not inclined to intervene in the matter, particularly since the order impugned is a discretionary order that has taken note of all facts and circumstances of the case - Petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out its remedy in accordance with law: High Court [para 15, 17, 18]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-83-AAR-GST
Comsat Systems Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant is engaged in manufacture, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of satellite communication antenna systems - They have to install 19 Nos., of 7 M antenna systems at various locations/states in India - M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., Bangalore, Karnataka is insisting on them to have separate temporary GST number for each location/states in the various states of India - They are, therefore, being directed by the contractee to obtain an Advance Ruling regarding their liability to raise an IGST invoice - Hence, the present application seeking an advance ruling on the following question - Whether they can raise an IGST invoice for supply of services such as installation, testing and commissioning of antennas installed in other States, other than the home State?
Held: Applicant is installing the antenna supplied to M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore - This amounts to rendering of service which includes installation, testing and commissioning whose place of supply has to be determined under provisions of the IGST Act, 2017 - Jurisdiction of the AAR with respect to the scope of Advance Ruling is enumerated under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 and sub section (2) contains an exhaustive list of subjects on which a ruling can be sought - The list in Section 97(2) of the CGST/TGST Act' 2017 does not have any reference to determination of "Place of Supply" - Since the question raised pertains to determination of place of supply of the services rendered by the taxpayer, therefore, the application is liable to be rejected as the queries raised do not fall within the ambit of provisions of section 97(2) - Application is rejected: AAR
- Application rejected: AAR |
|
