2023-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-GST
Ohmi Industries Asia Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. CCGST
GST - IGST Refund - Petitioner impugns an order-in-appeal - Controversy involved in the present petition relates to whether denial of integrated tax refund is justified on the ground that the petitioner is an intermediary - According to the adjudicating authority, providing support to the customers of OHMI, Japan directly meant that the petitioner was rendering intermediary services; therefore, the place of supply of services was located at the place of business of the petitioner and accordingly, the adjudicating authority held that the services provided by the petitioner were not zero-rated supply and, therefore, rejected the petitioner's application for refund - Although the petitioner has statutory right of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner cannot avail the same as the Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted, therefore, the present petition.
Held: It is apparent that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is without application of mind - Appellate authority has failed to notice that the petitioner's appeal was confined only for refund of integrated tax paid on invoices raised in respect of Market Research Services - The order passed by the adjudicating authority was premised on the basis that the petitioner was rendering services directly to the customers of OHMI, Japan - This was in the context of the Business Support Services rendered by the petitioner to OHMI, Japan - There is no dispute as to the nature of services rendered by the petitioner under the Market Research Services Agreement - It is also apparent form the plain language of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act that intermediary is one that arranges or facilitates supply of goods and services - In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner had rendered Market Research Services on its own; there is no allegation that it had arranged supply of such services from a third party - Therefore, insofar as providing Market Research Services is concerned, the petitioner cannot be held to be an intermediary - The issue involved in the present case is covered by the decision of this Court in M/s Ernst And Young Limited [ - 2023-TIOL-369-HC-DEL-GST ] - Respondent is directed to process the petitioner's claim for refund of integrated tax of Rs. 3,71,767/- relating to Market Research Services - Petitioner is also entitled to interest - Petition allowed: High Court [para 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-850-HC-MAD-GST
Abban Construction Company Vs Supdt. Of CGST & CE
GST - Petitioner, a construction company, seeks quashing of the order and directing the respondent to revoke the cancellation of registration - Petitioner submits that he has filed returns through an accountant but due to ill health he could not follow the filing of returns for the past six months; that he was informed by other end taxpayers that his registration was cancelled; that the further contention of the petitioner is that the period from 13.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation in the Suo Motu petition by Supreme Court; that petitioner has already filed GST monthly returns upto January 2023 and had paid necessary late fee and for the remaining period from February 2023 the petitioner could not upload the returns since the registration is cancelled; that if the cancellation is set aside and the GST is revoked the petitioner is willing to pay the GST along with late fee - Contention of the petitioner is that he could not reply to the show cause notice since it was issued to the Auditor's e-mail and he has not received the same.
Held : It is seen that the government has issued Notification No.03/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and has extended the time up to 30.06.2023 to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration, but the extension is granted to taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before 31.12.2022 - Unfortunately, the petitioner's cancellation was on 12.01.2023 and had it been prior to 31.12.2022, then the petitioner would have come within the time prescribed under the said notification - But the consideration for extension was pending during that period, hence this Court is of the considered that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit - Court is allowing the writ petition and the respondent is directed to restore the petitioner's GST registration number - After restoration the petitioner is directed to file the returns and pay tax and penalty as per law - Petition allowed: High Court [para 6 to 8]
- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-849-HC-MUM-GST
Media Net Software Services India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - It has so happened that the petitioner, on the impugned action as taken by the State Government, was required to deposit tax on the export transaction in question with the authorities under the CGST Act and/or the MGST Act - Petitioner also had filed applications for refund of tax deposited with the CGST/MGST/authorities - Such refund applications are stated to have been rejected by orders dated 15 October, 2020 and 27 November, 2020 respectively.
Held: Court in Dharmendra M. Jani Vs. The Union of India & Ors. - 2023-TIOL-653-HC-MUM-GST held that the jurisdiction of the respective authorities under the IGST Act and CGST/MGST Act are compartmentalised - Insofar as the export of services is concerned, the Division Bench has held that it would lie within the purview of the IGST Act and it would be the Central authorities under the IGST Act who would have jurisdiction in regard to any transaction in respect of export of service - Let the tax as deposited by the petitioner along with the statutory interest as applicable be transferred by the State authorities to the said Central Authority having jurisdiction under the IGST Act - Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax rejecting the refund application of the petitioner is set aside - Let the application be transferred within two weeks from today and the same be decided by the Assistant Commissioner (Central Taxes) within a period of six weeks - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 3 to 6]
- Petitions disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-848-HC-KERALA-GST
Dhanya Sreekumari Vs State Tax Officer
GST - Case of the petitioner is that the respondents are not entitled to seize cash by invoking the power available under Section 67 of the CGST Act - The petitioner has also preferred representation before the 4th respondent for the return of the seized cash as early as on 22.06.2022 - When no action was forthcoming, the writ petition was filed seeking direction for the return of the cash and for quashing Ext.P1 to the extent it seizes the cash.
Held: Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.514 of 2023 specifically held that in an investigation aimed and detecting tax evasion under the CGST Act, the Court fails to see how cash can be seized, especially when it is an admitted case that the cash did not form part of the stock-in-trade of the appellant's business - Court held that such findings only reveal the extent to which the authorities under the Act are misinformed of their powers and the limits of their jurisdiction - It was observed that the said findings might be justified if the Officer was an Officer attached to the Income Tax Department and that in the context of the GST Act, the findings are wholly irrelevant - On the above said findings, the Division Bench directed the respondents therein to forthwith release the cash against a receipt to be obtained from the appellant - In the case on hand also, it is admitted that the petitioners are engaged in the manufacture and sale of dosa/idly batter, etc., and that cash has been seized from the house - An additional fact is that the authorities had also seized pay-in-slips which would show that the cash was intended to be deposited in the Bank - As observed by the Division Bench, the cash being not a stock-in-trade of the petitioners, was not a thing that ought to have been seized - Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the cash seized from the petitioners forthwith, at any rate, within a week: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
|
