2023-TIOL-1115-HC-KERALA-GST
S K Eldhose Vs State Tax Officer
GST - The appellant is a proprietary-ship concern having CGST and KSGST registration - It was served with a notice under Section 61 of GST Act, 2017 alleging that it had claimed excess input tax during year 2017-2018 in violation of provisions of Section 16(2)(c) of GST Act - It is the submission of appellant that it was only on account of peculiar circumstances where it was not aware of assessment order that it could not take steps to file the appeal within time - It is not in dispute that assessment order was served on appellant in a manner prescribed under the statute, namely, an intimation through GST portal - The statutory period of limitation for preferring an appeal is three months from the date of communication of order, with a further period of one month towards condonation of delay - The appellant, not having availed the alternate remedy under statute, cannot feign ignorance of statutory scheme under GST Act, which accords a finality to those orders that have not been appealed against - The said statutory scheme of finality is not one that the Single Judge could have ignored either while considering whether or not to entertain the Writ Petition - This settled position in law has been reiterated in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 2020-TIOL-93-SC-VAT as also in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited - In former decision, it was clearly held that even though the High Court can entertain a Writ petition against any order or direction passed or action taken by State under Article 226 of Constitution, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law - Taking note of the said settled position of law and finding that all that the Single Judge did was to follow the said dictum while dismissing the Writ Petition, court see no reason to interfere with judgment of Single Judge - The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed: HC
- Writ appeal dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1114-HC-AHM-GST
Patel Suprimkumar Jitendrabhai Vs State of Gujarat
GST - The goods of petitioner conveyed and in transit in vehicle were intercepted in exercise of powers under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 - At the same time, authorities adverted to Section 130 of the Act to exercise powers thereunder to issue MOV-10 confiscating the goods - It is the contention of petitioner that authorities sought to derive their powers for taking possession of goods of petitioner which were in transit under Section 129 of the Act - It was submitted that said Section begins with non obstante clause and it is a provision independent of Section 130 - In that context, it was submitted that exercise of powers under Section 129 and thereafter switching over to Section 130 and passing order thereunder without availing the petitioner the benefits of release of goods under Section 129, could be said to be without jurisdiction - By way of interim relief, it is directed that goods of petitioner as well as vehicle, shall be released, provided the petitioner comply with the conditions - Upon compliance of said conditions by petitioner, goods and conveyance of petitioner be released by authorities: HC
- Matter listed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1113-HC-KERALA-CUS
Abdumon Vs CC
Cus - The gold recovered from petitioner's possession was confiscated - It is the submission of petitioner that delay in approaching this court should not be a reason for not recognizing the rights of petitioner to agitate his case on merits before a valid forum - Court cannot accept the said submission of petitioner for more reasons than one - While the approach of petitioner before this court itself was more than seven years after the order of appellate authority, the petitioner did not even approach the First Appellate Authority within time permitted under Customs Act - It is trite that when the statute prescribes a period of limitation for approaching the appellate authority and the assessee does not approach the appellate authority within the time granted under the statute, the scheme of finality accorded to the statutory orders cannot be ignored by High court when exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - That apart this court cannot also ignore the long delay in approaching this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Thus in any view of the matter, no reason found to interfere with the judgment of single Judge: HC
- Writ appeal dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-114-AAR-GST
Orient Cement Ltd
GST - Applicant's obligation to issue gold coins and white goods to the dealers/ customers upon achieving the stipulated lifting of the material/ purchase target during the scheme period would be regarded as a "permanent transfer or disposal of business assets where ITC has been availed on such assets" and would be treated as a "supply" even if made without consideration and be subjected to GST under Sl. No. 1 of the Schedule I to the CGST Act, 2017 - Such supply would not be regarded as "goods disposed of by way of gift" and Input tax credit would not be restricted under the Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act, 2017 : AAR
- Application disposed of : AAR
2023-TIOL-113-AAR-GST
Sri Venkateswara Cashew Chikky Manufacturers
GST - "Crackle", manufactured and supplied by the applicant containing the ingredients Sugar, Cashew Nuts, Butter, Liquid glucose and other permitted Flavours is sold only to ice cream manufacturers and is not meant for consumption by the end users directly but are used in the process of ice-cream making, specifically used as toppings - Hence the impugned product 'NBS Crackle' which is an industrial input cannot be classified as 'Sugar Boiled Confectionery', heading 1704: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2023-TIOL-112-AAR-GST
Indranil Chatterjee
GST - When the product itself proclaims to 'apply daily before or after bath all over your body', it is difficult for Authority to accept that people ordinarily buy it for treating of an ailment - In the view of the Authority, the item namely JAC OLIVOL BODY OIL is commonly understood as a 'preparation for the care of skin' thereby considered to be a cosmetic product used to get soft and smoother skin and cannot be considered as a medicament used for the treatment or prevention of any disease or ailment - The applicant himself has submitted that even if a product is manufactured using ingredients regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and according to the formula prescribed in the Pharmacopoeia, it cannot be classified as a medicament under Heading 3004 unless it is meant for therapeutic or prophylactic uses - Authority is also unable to hold the product in question to be a medicament for the reason that the product's primary function is "care" and not "cure", even if it has subsidiary curative or prophylactic properties - JAC OLIVOL BODY OIL intended to be manufactured & sold by the applicant would be covered under Heading 3304 and not under 3004 and would be taxed accordingly: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR |
