|
2023-TIOL-1250-HC-AHM-GST
Suresh Industries Vs Superintendent Range-VI
GST - Petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 07.07.2023, by which, a show cause notice has been issued to cancel the registration of the petitioner - It is the case of the petitioner that the reason stated in the Show Cause Notice is vague and does not refer to any particular facts / incident so as to enable the petitioner to give reply - It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent has never verified the registered premises of the petitioner and hence that ground mentioned in the show cause notice is factually incorrect.
Held: It is not in dispute that the issue is covered by the decision in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works ( - 2022-TIOL-504-HC-AHM-GST ), which has set out procedure for cancellation of registration - Court had held that by issuing a cryptic show cause notice, the authorities had violated the principles of natural justice - From the show cause notice, the reasons for cancellation are not decipherable therefrom - On the aforesaid grounds, the show cause notice is quashed and set aside and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are also quashed set aside - The petition is allowed solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice: High Court [para 6, 7, 8]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1249-HC-DEL-GST
Bhagwati Traders Vs Addl. CCGST
GST - Petitioner impugns an order dated 23.05.2023 whereby, the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration, was rejected - On 05.12.2021, the Proper Officer issued a show cause notice proposing to cancel the petitioner's GST registration for the following reason - Non-compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed.
Held: The purpose of the show cause notice is to enable the noticee to respond to the allegations - Since the said show cause notice is incapable of eliciting any meaningful response, it does not meet the standards required for a show cause notice - Any order passed pursuant to such a show cause notice would fall foul of the principles of natural justice - The impugned order dated 23.05.2023 is equally cryptic and vague - It is evident from the reasons for rejection of the petitioner's appeal that the said order has been passed without application of mind - Impugned show notice dated 5.12.2021 fails to disclose the reason for proposing cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and, therefore, the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's registration falls foul of the principles of natural justice - It is accordingly set aside - The show cause notice dated 28.02.2022 is also unsustainable as it is unintelligible - Bench is unable to countenance the manner in which the appellant's contentions have been dealt with by the Proper Officer as well as the Appellate Authority - Impugned orders are set aside - The petition is, accordingly, allowed with costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/- to be paid within two weeks: High Court [para 7, 14, 17, 18]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1248-HC-DEL-CUS
CC Vs M D Overseas
Cus - Revenue has preferred appeals against the order of the CESTAT whereby it allowed the amendment of documents filed with the Commissioner of Customs at the time of export of Gold Jewellery and Gold Medallions, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 149 of the Act - It was claimed by Respondents that they are seeking amendment as they had not entered the declaration for claim of Service Tax Rebate (STR) which was required to be made in electronic shipping bill as per paragraph 2 of the Notification No. 41/2012-Service Tax dated 29 June 2012 - Accordingly, by way of amendment, they wanted to endorse the said declaration on the said shipping bills so that they could claim STR under the relevant notification.
Held: There is no gainsaying that Section 149 of the Act has to be read in conjunction with the requirement spelt out in the above Notification 41/2012-ST dated 29 June 2012 - A careful perusal of Section 149 of the Act shows that firstly, it provides no period of limitation for filing of an application for amendment of relevant documents in order to seek rebate or any other benefit - Secondly, it does not provide for any reasons that may enable an exporter to claim amendments in the shipping documents - Thirdly, the proposed amendment in the shipping bills can be allowed by the Proper Officer subject to the only rider that same is based on documentary evidence that must be shown to be in existence at the time the goods were exported - There is no provision in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or for that matter in the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is akin to Section 149 of the Act - Counsel for the appellant was all at sea to indicate which document was amiss, or as to which information or declaration was lacking that were not filed along with the shipping bills/orders at the time of making the exports - Apparently, all the relevant documents which could have been filed at the time of exports, were available as it is, in original form and format without any change as such and were submitted along with the application for amendment of the shipping bills etc. on 14 March 2017 - Bench finds no legal infirmity, perversity or incorrect approach adopted by the CESTAT in passing the impugned orders dated 24 February 2020 thereby allowing the respondents the benefit of STR based on the exports made during the relevant period - Appeals dismissed: High Court [para 7, 10, 11, 13]
- Appeals dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-118-AAR-GST
Juspay Technologies Pvt Ltd
GST - The applicant provides computer application services through the- " Namma Yatri " APP for facilitating business transactions of supply of services connecting through the platform of suppliers/sellers (auto drivers) and recipients/buyers (Customers who use the auto driver's service), registered under the said APP on payment of membership charges & subscription fee and also on furnishing required documents as well as on entering into respective agreements - Applicant has, therefore, sought an advance ruling on the following questions viz. (1) Whether the Applicant satisfies the definition of an e-commerce operator and the nature of supply as conceptualized in Section 9(5) of CGST Act, 2017 r/w notification No 17/2017 dated 28.06.2017?; (2) Whether the supply by the service provider (person who has subscribed to Namma yatri) to his customers (who also have subscribed to Namma yatri) on the Applicant's computer application amounts to supply by the Applicant? (3) Whether the Applicant is liable to collect and pay GST on the supply of services supplied by the service provider (person who has subscribed to Namma Yatri) to his customers (who also have subscribed to Namma Yatri) on the Applicant's computer application?
Held: It could be inferred from the definitions given in Section 2(44), 2(45) that Electronic Commerce Operator (ECO) means any person who owns, operates or manages digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce i.e. for the supply of goods or services or both, including digital products over digital or electronic network - In the instant case, the applicant owns digital platform ('Namma Yatri' APP), for the supply of services - Thus the applicant squarely fits into the definition and qualifies to be an Electronic Commerce Operator - The crucial and most important issue is whether the impugned services are supplied "through" the electronic commerce operator or not - Thus the word "through" in the phrase services supplied "through" electronic commerce operator, in Section 9(5) ibid, gives the meaning that the services are to be supplied by means of / by the agency of / from beginning to the end / during entire period by e-commerce operator - In the instant case, it is observed that the applicant, because of their unique business model, merely connects the auto driver and passenger and their role ends on such connection; they do not collect the consideration; they have no control over actual provision of service by service provider; they do not have the details of the ride; they do not have control room/call centre etc. - The supply happens independent of the applicant and the applicant is involved only in the identification of the supplier of services and doesn't take responsibility for the operational and completion of the ride - Thus it is observed that supply of services are not through the electronic commerce operator, but are independent - Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the conditions of Section 9(5) for the discharge of tax liability by electronic commerce operator - Thus the applicant, though qualifies the definition of being an e-commerce operator, is not the person liable for discharge of tax liability under Section 9(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Supply by the service provider (person who has subscribed to Namma Yatri) to his customers (who also have subscribed to Namma Yatri) on the Applicant's computer application does not amounts to supply by the Applicant - Applicant is not liable to collect and pay GST on the supply of services supplied by the service provider (person who has subscribed to Namma Yatri) to his customers (who also have subscribed to Namma Yatri) on the Applicant's computer application: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR |
|
