2023-TIOL-1235-HC-MAD-ST
SIP Academy India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. Commissioner
ST - Commercial coaching service - Cases were earlier transferred to call book and hence no orders were passed in view of the pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court since the Tribunal order decision in K K Academy P Ltd. was appealed against - However, the said appeal was withdrawn on 18.11.2020 on account of monetary policy and the impugned orders were passed - Details called for by the petitioner were not furnished and orders were passed in a hurried manner - Considering the fact that the issue was kept alive by the department all these years and the impugned Order in Original was passed in hurried manner without furnishing the details to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent/Additional Commissioner herein to pass fresh orders on merits, after hearing the petitioner within a period of three months - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 14, 15]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1234-HC-AHM-GST
Paee Gee Fabrics Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioners have challenged order dated 29.09.2020 issued on 21.10.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner, (Appeals), Ahmedabad confirming the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central GST, rejecting the refund application dated 08.08.2019 filed by the petitioner no.1 in Form GST RFD-01A - SCN alleged that there is no provision that second refund application can be filed for the same particular month Le. August 2018 under which appellant filed refund claim under the category "Any Other Specify" in inverted rate of structure; that it is impermissible under the law to split the refund claim for a particular month in two parts.
Held: Respondent authorities have adopted a pedantic approach by rejecting the refund application - It was clarified by Circular No. 94/2019 that when the assessee was not eligible to claim the refund, then ITC is required to be claimed under the category "any other" instead of under the category "refund of unutilized ITC on account of accumulation due to inverted tax structure" in FORM GST RFD-01A for the same tax period in which said reversal has been made - The petitioners taking benefit of such circular preferred Second refund application dated 08.08.2019 for balance amount of ITC on account of accumulated inverted duty tax structure amounting to Rs.8,06,852/- - Thus the respondent authorities have by adopting such a pedantic approach could not have rejected the legitimate claim of the petitioner company for balance amount of refund claim - Petition succeeds - Impugned orders are quashed and set aside - The respondent authorities are directed to sanction the refund of Rs.8,06,852/- as per the refund application filed by the petitioners on 08.08.2019 within a period of six weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 32, 33]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1233-HC-MAD-GST
Sree Venkateswara Road Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs Superintending Engineer
GST - Petitioner is engaged in construction activities including Government projects/contracts - During erstwhile service tax regime, they were not discharging their Service Tax liability on the above work as the petitioner was exempted vide Serial No.13 (a) of Service tax Notification No. 25/2012 S.T dated 20.06.2012 - Due to lack of awareness and based on the bonafide belief that the subject works continues to be exempted under GST, the Petitioner neither charged any GST from the first respondent [Corporation of Chennai] nor paid GST to the Government; that since GST is an indirect tax, the liability of which shall be borne by the first Respondent, being the service recipient, the Petitioner vide letter dated 24.11.2020 requested the first Respondent to reimburse the GST along with interest - The petitioner is faced with threat of recovery by the second respondent of the GST liability in respect of the subject works contracts undertaken by the Petitioner for the first respondent - It is in these circumstances, the petitioner had filed the present writ petitions to direct the first Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 24.11.2020 and also direct the first respondent to reimburse GST payable by the Petitioner.
Held: Similar writ petitions in W.P.Nos.21196 and 21198 of 2019 dated 01.08.2019 and W.P.(MD) No.25882 of 2022 dated 16.11.2022, was disposed of by this Court with directions - 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2020, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, including the relevant Government orders after granting the petitioner reasonable opportunity, within a period of four (4) weeks - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 8, 9]
- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1232-HC-DEL-CUS
Mohammad Zaid Salim Vs CC
Cus - Petitioner seeks a direction for release of his gold chain weighing about 100 grams which was seized/detained by the Customs officers on 18 October 2017.
Held: Bench has no hesitation in holding that the respondent has dealt with the entire matter patently in an arbitrary, unjust and illegal manner - Where any goods have been seized under Sub-Section (1) and no notice thereof is given under Clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure, the goods are liable to be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized - Further, in terms of Section 110(2) read with its Proviso, the maximum period for which the goods can remain seized without issuance of a notice under Section 124(a) is one year - There is no dispute that the seizure for the initial period of six months has not been extended by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs - In the instant matter, the gold chain was detained on 18 October 2017 and till the date of filing of the petition or thereafter, no notice under Section 124(a) of the Act has admittedly been issued - Gold chain had since been deposited in the Government Mint, Mumbai on 26 June 2018 without any notice to the petitioner and which fact was brought on the record during the hearing on 27 May 2019 - Writ Petition is allowed by directing the respondent to do the necessary assessment/ evaluation as to the value of gold item as on 26 June 2018 based on the tariff value of gold applicable on that day, as per prescribed RBI parameters including the notification referred to and pay a sum equivalent thereto to the petitioner within three weeks - Petition disposed of accordingly: High Court [para 5, 7, 11, 13]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1231-HC-AHM-CUS
Ktex Non Woven Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 - Import of capital goods - Petitioner submits that levy and collection of IGST from them was clearly illegal.
Held: In the case of Prince Spintex ( 2020-TIOL-422-HC-AHM-CUS ) an identical issue as the one raised in these petitions was decided by this Court considering the policy and the relevant notifications - Held therein that the amendment of Notification No.16/2015-Cus vide Serial No.1 of Notification No.79/2017 dated 13th October, 2017, would also apply to imports made during the period 1.7.2017 to 13.10.2017 - Trade Notice 11/2018 dated 30.6.2017 to the extent it is stated therein that under Chapter 5 importers would need to pay IGST is hereby quashed and set aside - Petitions are allowed - The petitioners are entitled to be refunded the respective amounts of IGST: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petitions allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT |
