2023-TIOL-1148-HC-P&H-GST
Sanjeev Sharma Vs CCGST
GST - Petition seeks regular bail - Petitioner claims parity with co-accused Lalit Dogra who was granted regular bail by this court on 21.3.2023.
Held : Keeping in view the custody period, on the basis of parity of petitioner vis-a-vis co-accused so far as grant of bail is concerned and though the investigation is complete conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petition allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1147-HC-MUM-GST
Saket Agarwal Vs UoI
GST - Petition challenges the communication (Exhibit 'A') issued to the Officer-In-Charge of the Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. u/s 83 of the Act, 2017 and seeks for quashing the same - Proceedings were adjourned to enable the counsel for Revenue to take instructions as to whether the State Tax Officer would be the proper officer to exercise jurisdiction under Section 83 of the MGST Act so as to issue the impugned communication - On instructions, it is stated that the State Tax Officer would not have any jurisdiction to issue such communication, hence, the impugned communication dated 21 April 2023 is being withdrawn by the officer who had issued it.
Held: In view of withdrawal of 'Exhibit A', further adjudication of the petition is not called for - An intimation of withdrawal of such communication be immediately sent to the Officer-In-Charge of the Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. - Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1146-HC-KAR-GST
KBL SPML 25JV Vs AAR Karnataka GST
GST - Application filed seeking Advance Ruling was rejected without being admitted for hearing - Applicant's grievance with the order dated 29 November 2022, apart from the merits of the reasons assigned, is that their application was rejected without due opportunity to show cause against the reason assigned - Respondent, interpreting the expression 'being' as found in Section 97(2)(g) of the KGST/CGST Act, has opined that the phrase 'being undertaken' can only refer to an ongoing and continuous supply and with the petitioner' contractual period having expired, the application cannot be admitted.
Held: Court is of the considered view that opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 98(2) cannot be an empty formality, and the petitioner should have been informed that the application could be rejected without admission on the ground the corresponding contractual period has expired - Therefore, this Court is persuaded to opine that the opportunity of hearing contemplated is rendered a mere formality - The petitioner must, therefore, have appropriate liberty to file additional plea to show cause against such reasoning and the respondent must reconsider the application - Question whether even a petition filed against the Advance Ruling Authority's order under Section 98(2) or 98(4) of the CGST Act/KGST Act could be considered in its full import in an appropriate case, but for the present, this Court is of the considered view that as the interference is with the Advance Ruling Authority's order under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act/KGST Act on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing as contemplated under the Statute which inheres the principles of natural justice, this petition need not be placed before a Division Bench - Petition is allowed in part, and the respondent's order dated 29.11.2022 rejecting the petitioner's application for advance ruling without admitting it for detailed consideration is quashed and the application is restored for reconsideration - The petitioner, who now has the advantage of knowing the reasoning assigned by the respondent, shall be at liberty to file additional plea when issued with notice of further hearing: High Court [para 5, 8]
- Petition partly allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1145-HC-KAR-ST
CCT Vs Way2 Wealth Brokers Pvt Ltd
ST - Assessee was collecting Late Payment Charges, (LPC) from the customers for delay in payment of the amount beyond the stipulated time - The assessee paid service tax on the LPC inadvertently for the period April 2009 to March 2011 - Pursuant to a clarificatory Circular dated 03.08.2011 clarifying that service tax need not be paid on LPC collected from stock brokers, the assessee filed a refund application for an amount of Rs.37,72,354/- being service tax inadvertently paid which was not due under the existing laws - Commissioner(A) remanded the claim for the period October 2010 to March 2011 and rejected the claim for the period April 2009 to September 2010 as hit by limitation - CESTAT upheld this order, hence an appeal was filed before High Court - High Court held that wh en there is a lack of authority to collect such service tax not liable to be paid by the assessee, it would not give the Department the authority to retain the amount paid by the assessee, therefore, mere nomenclature would not be an embargo on the right of the petitioner to demand refund of payment made under a mistaken notion; that the p eriod of limitation would not be applicable in the present case and the appeal was allowed - Aggrieved by this order, Revenue has filed a Review petition.
Held: The circular dated 03.08.2011, which is prior to filing of the application is unambiguous and is to the effect that delayed payment charges are not includible in taxable value - Insofar as the argument with regard to the applicability of authority in KVR Construction [ 2010-TIOL-980 -HC-KAR-ST ], same is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case - Revenue has already refunded the amount, hence there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order - Review petition is dismissed: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petition dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT |
