2023-TIOL-693-HC-AHM-GST
Stallion Energy Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Adjudication order came to be passed on 02.03.2022 and as per the same, the petitioner was directed to make the payment of total amount of Rs.56,14,388/- - Thereafter, order of provisional attachment u/s 83 of the Act came to be passed on 16.06.2022 - Out of the total amount of the tax demand, Rs.46 lakhs came to be withdrawn by the respondents from the bank account of petitioner maintained with HDFC Bank - Petitioner submits that an appeal was filed on 04.07.2022 u/s 107 of the Act before the Appellate Authority but there was delay and for which a COD application has also been filed - That petitioner is required to pre-deposit 10% before the appellate authority, however, respondents withdrew an amount of Rs.46 lakh from the account of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner prays that the respondents be directed to refund the remaining amount i.e. Rs.42,44,664/- - Counsel for Revenue submits that on completion of period of three months from the date of order dated 02.03.2022, the respondent authority has recovered an amount of Rs.46 lakh and thereafter on 04.07.2022 the petitioner preferred an appeal; that it is not open for the petitioner to request for refund of the said amount merely because the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 107.
Held: Bench is of the view that such contention (of the petitioner) is misconceived in view of the provisions contained in Section 73(9) read with Sections 78 and 107 of the Act - If the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed by the Appellate Authority, it is always open for the petitioner to make such request before the Appellate Authority that direction be issued to the respondents to refund the amount - However, the present petition is misconceived and, therefore, Bench is not inclined to entertain this petition - The petition is, accordingly, dismissed: High Court [para 8]
- Petition dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-692-HC-AHM-GST
Sona Metals Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner submits that respondent issued show cause notice dated 01.07.2022 in Form GST REG-17/31 by way of uploading the same on the portal maintained by the department; that no document either in the form of notice or any other document has been received by the petitioner at his registered place of his business; that SCN simply states that "In case, Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of fact."; that thereafter, the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 15.07.2022 for cancellation of registration in Form GST REG-19 by way of uploading the same on portal maintained by the department; that it is further stated that the registration of the petitioner was being cancelled pursuant to the show cause notice dated 30.06.2022, but in fact, the petitioner did not receive any such notice dated 30.06.2022; that, therefore, the petition be allowed by setting aside the SCN - Counsel for respondent Revenue, after verifying the original file, has submitted that the said notice was not sent to the petitioner by RPAD, however, the officer has personally gone to the registered office of the petitioner but the premises of the petitioner was found to be closed and, therefore, the said notice was affixed on the door of the premises of the petitioner - It is further submitted that once the respondent authority has passed an order under Section 29 of the GST Act, it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the said order by filing appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act and it is always open for the petitioner to take all contentions before the appellate authority.
Held: In similar type of cases, this Court has considered such type of show cause notice, which was issued for cancellation of registration and this Court, after considering the decision rendered in case of Aggarwal Dyeing ( 2022-TIOL-504-HC-AHM-GST ), has allowed the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.903/2022 by an order dated 07.06.2023 - In the present case also, the show cause notice dated 01.07.2022 issued by the respondent to the petitioner is very vague and cryptic, therefore, it was difficult for the petitioner to give any reply to the said show cause notice - In both the orders, the respondent concerned has failed to provide specific reasons for cancellation of registration under Section 29(2) of the GST Act - Both the show cause notice as well as the order dated 15.07.2022 deserve to be quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed - Respondent is granted liberty to issue fresh notice and pass appropriate order in accordance with law: High Court [para 12, 13, 15, 17]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-691-HC-KAR-GST
Sri Om Traders Vs Pr. Addl. DG of GST Intelligence Officer
GST - Petitioner inter alia prays for setting aside the provisional attachment of bank accounts; attachment of trade debts - Counsel for respondent Revenue submits that the provisional attachment of bank accounts and trade debts have been effected by various orders issued between 14.02.2020 and 05.10.2020; that the provisional attachment orders issued u/s 83(1) of the Act, 2017 shall cease to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of order as per s.83(2) of the Act, 2017; that in any case, upon the expiry of provisional attachment orders, a Show cause notice bearing dated 01.09.2022 has already been issued to the petitioner and the same is presently pending adjudication; that the writ petition be disposed of.
Held: Admittedly, in the present case, the period of one year from the passing of the provisional orders of attachment has expired as evident from the details furnished and the provisional orders of attachment automatically by operation of law have been ceased to be in operation - Impugned orders of attachment are declared to be no longer in operation from the expiry of the period of one year as stipulated under Section 83(2) of the Act - Bank authorities are directed to take note of the same forthwith - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 3, 4]
- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-690-HC-DEL-GST
Yogesh Kumar Goyal Vs DGGI
GST - Petitioners have sought regular bail in the matter of investigation/inquiry carried in the matter of offence registered under s.132(1)(b) & (c) of Act, 2017 - Allegation is involvement in fraudulently availing and passing on ineligible/fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Inasmuch as the petitioner, Director of Urja Global Limited, was showing itself as receiving goods from various firms but the said firms were found non-existent at their registered premises - Further, suppliers in the supply chain of M/s. Urja had no inward supplier and it is thus claimed that in a short span of five months i.e. from November 2020 to March 2021, M/s. Urja had availed and fraudulently passed on ineligible ITC amounting to Rs.17.2 crores to M/s. JGSIPL - It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody for 70 days; that though the complaint was filed against the two individuals, no complaint had been filed against the company, whereas deposit of tax or availing of the ITC or the evasion, if any, was done by the company; that the complaint was filed on the 60th day at 7 pm after the Court hours so as to frustrate the right of the petitioners to get bail u/s 167 of the CrPC.
Held: Considering the facts mentioned in the order dated 30th September 2021 and the fact that the petitioners were in custody for 70 days; complaints had already been filed and the evidence is primarily documentary in nature, the order dated 30th September 2021 is made absolute till the trial or the complaint is quashed - Bail granted - Petitions are disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petitions disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-689-HC-MUM-GST
Mahle Anand Termal Systems Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner seeks an order and direction against revenue to allow them to correct Form GSTR 1 Return and Invoice by mentioning correct GST No. of their customer and other reliefs - It is the case of petitioner that there were three inadvertent errors in SAP wherein GSTN number remained to be corrected/updated from Andhra returns - Petitioner made various representations to revenue to allow them to correct their GSTR, but of no avail - The representation is still pending - Revenue is directed to decide said representation made by petitioner within a period of eight weeks without fail in accordance with law after considering the applicability of Circular 26/26/2017-GST and the judgment of Madras High Court in case of Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. 2021-TIOL-604-HC-MAD-GST and in Sun Dye Chem 2020-TIOL-1858-HC-MAD-GST - The order that would be passed by revenue shall be communicated to petitioner within one week from the date of passing of order - If the representation made by petitioner is allowed, revenue shall permit the petitioner to carry out rectification in GST number in question within one week - If the order is adverse, petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings: HC
- Writ petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-688-HC-MUM-GST
Jabil Circuit India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner seeks an order and direction against revenue to allow them to rectify inadvertent mistake in mentioning incorrect place of supply 33 - Tamil Nadu instead of 34 - Puduchery in Form GSTR1 for the period from February, 2018 to June, 2018 and October 2018 - Representations are made by petitioner on 8th and 20th July, 2021 which are still pending - Revenue is directed to decide those representations within eight weeks in accordance with law after considering the judgment of Madras High Court in case of Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. 2021-TIOL-604-HC-MAD-GST and applicability of Circular no. 26/26/2017 GST - The order that would be passed by revenue shall be communicated to petitioner within one week from the date of passing the order - If representations made by petitioner are allowed, revenue shall permit the petitioner to carry out rectification in GSTR-1 in question within one week - If the order is adverse, the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings: HC
- Writ petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT |
