|
2023-TIOL-1078-HC-DEL-GST
Solidum And Stars Guild LLP Vs CCT
GST - Petitioner had filed an application claiming refund of the amount of Rs.76,76,106/-, relating to ITC in respect of goods exported during the period November 2020 to March 2021 - Adjudicating Authority issued a Show Cause Notice dated 19.07.2021, proposing to reject the petitioner's claim for the reason viz. Your supplier/s have been reported as Non-Existent by the respective jurisdictional CGST authorities & Mismatch in invoice and FOB values - Impugned order dated 05.08.2021 records that verification was conducted by the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Division Old Delhi, CGST Delhi North and it was informed that on physical verification, the entity M/s Siddhi Impex was found to be non-existent at their registered place of business - There was no allegation regarding any of the other suppliers, the details of which were supplied by the petitioner - Petitioner, does not seek to question the decision of the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority in rejecting the petitioner's claim for refund in respect of the ITC in relation to the supplies received from M/s Siddhi Impex; he has confined his relief to the refund of the ITC in respect of inputs received from other suppliers, amounting to Rs.54,99,846/-. Held: There is no allegation regarding any irregularity in respect of the supplies made by the suppliers other than M/s Siddhi Impex - Neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Authority has raised any doubt in respect of those supplies - Present petition is allowed - The Adjudicating Authority is directed to process the petitioner's claim for a sum of Rs.54,99,846/- pursuant to its application dated 21.05.2021, along with interest, preferably within a period of four weeks - Petition allowed: High Court [para 15, 17, 18]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1077-HC-DEL-GST
Singla Exports Vs CBIC
GST- Petitioner impugns an order dated 22.06.2022 whereby the petitioner's GST Registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 02.07.2017. Held: There is merit in the contention that the impugned Show Cause Notice did not contain any specific ground for proposing the cancellation of the petitioner's GST Registration - It is settled law that a Show Cause Notice must specify the reasons for the proposed action so as to enable the noticee to respond to the same - In the present case, the impugned Show Cause Notice did not provide any clue as to which provisions of the GST Act or the GST Rules were allegedly violated by the petitioner - Curiously, the order dated 10.06.2022 while rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that no reply had been received, also stated that the petitioner's reply was examined - It appears that the order is auto-generated- Order set aside and matter remanded: High Court [para 4, 5, 9, 10]
- Matter remanded: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1076-HC-DEL-GST
Ottimo Visuals Vs CGST
GST - Petitioner impugns the SCN; order cancelling its registration as well as the order rejecting their application for revocation of the order cancelling registration. Held : It is important to note that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 02.07.2017 - It is also relevant to note that the tabular statement indicating the amount of tax recoverable from the petitioner as reflected in the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 records the tax payable as nil - There is a controversy whether the petitioner had, in fact, appeared before the concerned officer - Whilst the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the concerned officer records that the petitioner did not appear on the given date; the stand in the counter affidavit is to the contrary - It is the petitioner's case that it had shifted its place of business in Delhi to Shop No.10, Property No. 11/35-B, First Floor, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi in the month of July, 2021 - The petitioner had also explained that the earlier premises, where it was carrying on its business, was destroyed by the Northern Railways and, therefore, the petitioner was compelled to shift from the said premises - Show cause notice did not indicate any of the facts or allegation as stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents - It merely stated the reason for proposing cancellation of registration as, "non-compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act or Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed" - It is trite law that a show cause notice must clearly indicate the reasons for proposing the adverse action in order to enable the noticee to respond to the same - Clearly, the impugned show cause notice does not meet this standard - As is apparent from the above, no meaningful response could be elicited from the respondents on the basis of the cryptic reasons as set out in the show cause notice - Show cause notice dated 07.07.2022 did not propose any action for cancelling the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect from 02.07.2017 - Impugned order dated 13.10.2022 neither refers to the reply filed by the petitioner nor considers the explanation provided by the petitioner - There is no dispute that the premises where the petitioner claims to have been carrying on his business prior to shifting to new address in July, 2021, was demolished by the Northern Railway Authorities - Although, it is alleged in the counter affidavit that it was demolished many years ago, there is no material on record to establish the same - It is the petitioner's case that the premises had been demolished sometime in the year 2021 compelling it to shift to a new place - Neither the impugned show cause notice nor the show-cause notice dated 23.09.2022 can be sustained - Consequently, the orders passed pursuant thereto are liable to be set aside - It would be open for the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice if the respondents desire to cancel the petitioner's GST registration clearly indicating the reasons for the same - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 4, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1075-HC-DEL-GST
National Internet Exchange of India Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner's claim for refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax in respect of zero rated supplies was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's application was filed beyond the period stipulated under Section 54(1) - Petitioner assails rejection of its claim on the ground that its first application seeking refund was filed within the prescribed period; that the subsequent applications were filed online to clarify the deficiencies and queries raised by the officer concerned; therefore, it cannot be considered as a fresh application for the purposes of determining whether the claim was filed within the period of limitation. Held : The nature of the deficiencies as set out in deficiency memo no.2 clearly indicate that the application filed by the petitioner was not incomplete in terms of Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules - It is also apparent that some of the documents demanded were not relevant as the petitioner's claim was for refund of IGST and not unutilised ITC - Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules are not applicable in the facts of the present case - The petitioner had, in terms of Clause (c) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, submitted a statement containing the number and date of invoices and the relevant Bank Realisation Certificates/Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates - It was also accompanied by the necessary declaration as specified - In view of the above, the application for refund filed by the petitioner on 31.10.2019 could not be ignored or disregarded - It is clear that the petitioner had complied with the said requirement inasmuch as it had filed an application for refund on 31.10.2019 in the "form and manner" as prescribed in the CGST Act and the CGST Rules - Thus, in terms of Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, the period of limitation would stop running notwithstanding that the proper officer required further documents or material to satisfy himself that the refund claimed was due to the petitioner - Present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 rejecting the petitioner's application for refund on the ground of limitation is rejected - The petition and the application for refund is restored for the consideration of the proper officer, afresh on merits: High Court [para 23, 24, 25, 29]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1074-HC-DEL-GST
Hanuman Enterprises Opc Pvt Ltd Vs Additional Director General Directorate General of GST Intelligence
GST - Petitioner has challenged the investigation(s) being conducted by the investigation agencies. Held: In the present case, the Delhi State Authority administratively concerned with the petitioner, has clarified that it has not carried out any investigation but the petitioner's ITC was blocked on account of a communication received from DGGI, Jaipur and the petitioner's bank account was blocked at the instance of DGGI, Chennai - DGGI, Chennai, has also stated that it has not carried out any investigation in respect of the petitioner company - Petitioner has a separate tax registration - The disclosed principal place of business of the petitioner is the same as that of some other connected entities, which have been investigated by DGGI, Chennai - If any of the authorities has found it necessary to investigate the petitioner based on certain information, the said investigation cannot be stopped or interdicted on account of investigation conducted with respect of any other entity - Provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act are not attracted - Bench finds no reason to interdict DGGI, Jaipur from conducting the investigation in respect of the petitioner company - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 16, 18, 20]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1073-HC-ALL-GST
Manoj Steel Traders Vs State of U P
GST - Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation - Petitioner submits that the original penalty order under section 129(3) of the UP GST Act was received on 26.06.2019; whereas, the original copy of the order was received by the erstwhile counsel, who did not file the appeal and, therefore, the mistake on the part of the counsel, should not be treated adversely against the petitioner; that a bonafide mistake on the part of the counsel in pursuing a remedy is a good ground for condonation of delay in approaching the right forum in the right kind of proceedings. Held: Section 169 (1)(a) of the UPGST Act provides that any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely, by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person - Therefore, it is evident that the order communicated on an Advocate will be deemed service upon the petitioner - Not a single word has been whispered as to how and in what method the petitioner came to know about the said order on 26.06.2019 and as to why the application was moved on 26.06.2019 by another counsel, when the order dated 28.03.2018 was already communicated to the petitioner's Advocate, namely, Shri Anil Jain - Impugned order cannot be interfered with - Writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed: High Court [para 10, 13, 14]
- Petition dismissed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1072-HC-GUW-GST
Rajkamal And Company Vs UoI
GST - By order dated 16.11.2020, the respondent no. 5 has ordered to conduct Special Audit for GST Accounts of the petitioner firm for the period mentioned therein, by appointing a Chartered Accountant for Special Audit under Section 72A of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174[2][e] and Section 66 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner has assailed this order by submitting that the competent authority before passing an order for Special Audit with prior approval of the Commissioner, has to form an opinion that the value has not been correctly declared or the credit availed is not within the normal limits; that in order to reach such an opinion, there are two aspects which are to be considered as condition precedent, firstly, the nature and complexity of the acts; and secondly, the interest of revenue - It is the submission of the petitioner that the two condition precedents are found apparently absent in the impugned order dated 16.11.2020; that it is clear non-application of mind on the part of the said authority and thus, arbitrary; that appeals preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 16.11.2020 were disallowed, merely citing a reason to the effect that the appeals did not qualify, without passing any reasoned order - Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Chartered Accountant firm who has been entrusted to conduct the Special Audit, has not yet proceeded with the Special Audit. Held: Issue notice, returnable in three weeks - Having regard to the provisions of Section 66 and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 vis-a`-vis the contents of the impugned order dated 16.11.2020 which prima facie does not reflect about consideration of the two aspects mentioned in Section 66 of the CGST Act, 2017, it is provided that the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner till the returnable date: High Court [para 5, 7]
- Notice issued: GAUHATI HIGH COURT |
|
