2023-TIOL-1274-HC-ALL-GST
Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar Vs Addl. Commissioner Grade-2
GST - Petitioner is assailing the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by respondent no. 1 under the provisions of s. 129(3) of the Act, 2017 - Admittedly, the goods in question were sold by the the registered dealer along with genuine documents i.e. tax invoices and e-way bills - At the time of interception, it is alleged that driver of the vehicle made statement that goods were to be unloaded at the place which is not mentioned in the tax invoice but at Mainpuri itself - Another issue raised is that the goods along with truck was not on the route of its destination, therefore, there was intention to evade tax.
Held: Under the GST Act, there is no specific provision which bounds the selling dealer to disclose the route to be taken during transportation of goods or while goods are in transit - However, there was a provision under VAT Act to disclose the route during transportation of goods to reach its final destination - Once the legislature itself in its wisdom has chosen to delete the said provision, the authorities were not correct in passing the seizure order even if the vehicle was not on regular route or on different route - Once the documents accompanying the goods were found to be genuine, the goods ought not be have been seized - Impugned order dated 17.8.2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed - W rit petition is allowed with the cost of Rs. 5000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner by the State within 15 days - The State exchequer will be at liberty to recover the said cost from the erring officer - The amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him in accordance with law within a period of one month: High Court [para 10, 12, 15, 16]
- Petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1273-HC-ALL-GST
Meera Tent Cloth Supplies Vs Addl. Commissioner
GST - Petitioner assails the order dated 22.11.2019 - Counsel for respondent revenue submits that once the GSTIN of the petitioner was cancelled on 30.11.2018, the petitioner cannot be permitted to give his GSTIN to the selling dealer, which has been mentioned in tax invoice of selling dealer; that when the goods were intercepted, the tax invoices have been matched from the official website where it has been found that GSTIN of the petitioner mentioned in the tax invoice has already been cancelled and the respondent authority has rightly imposed the tax along with penalty upon the petitioner as the petitioner has found in transporting the goods with intention to evade the tax.
Held: It is not in dispute that two G.S.T. registration numbers were granted to the petitioner and since there was some technical glitch the first GSTIN No. could not be accessed with the login credentials provided therefore, subsequent GSTIN no. was allotted to the petitioner, which is alleged to have been cancelled - It is also not in dispute that from the GSTIN no. which is alleged to be cancelled, the petitioner has accessed the portal and downloaded all the relevant forms accompanying the goods in question at the relevant point of time - The genuineness of the e-way bill as well as tax invoice accompanying with the goods in question has not been disputed at any stage - It is not in dispute that the petitioner has opted for composition which is specifically mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition and same has not been denied in para 12 of the counter affidavit - Once the petitioner has opted for composition, the benefit of input tax credit cannot be availed, hence there cannot be any evasion of tax - Impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is, therefore, quashed - Writ petition succeeds and is allowed with all consequential benefits: High Court [para 11, 12, 13, 15]
- Petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1272-HC-MAD-GST
East Coast Constructions And Industries Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)
GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by the Assessment order dated 08.05.2023 - The grievance of the petitioner is that right from the inception of GST with effect from 01.07.2017 all along notices/communications were sent/hosted to the petitioner's Dashboard meant for " View Notices and Orders " - However, of late, the respondent has started hosting these notices/communications in " View Additional Notices and Orders " in the Dashboard and thus, the petitioner has failed to notice the notices in Form GST DRC-01A and Form GST DRC-01 dated 19.08.2022 and 27.10.2022 - Respondent submits that there is proper communication of notices as envisaged in s.169 of the Act, 2017 ; that the notices were also sent by post although not required; that the petitioner should be allowed to work out his remedy before the Appellate authority u/s 107 of the Act, 2017 .
Held: Petitioner deserves a fair chance as admittedly there appears to be a discrepancy in the turnover pointed out in Form GST ASMT-10 dated 21.03.2022 and in Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B - Court is not inclined to direct the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority as the matter would require a proper consideration, so that in case of any other discrepancy, the matter can be later decided in hierarchy of the Appellate Forum prescribed under the TNGST Act, 2017 - Impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months - Respondent is also directed to address the issue arising out of the hosting of information in the Menu in Dashboard for " View Additional Notices and Orders " when already there is another drop Menu for " View Notices and Orders ", which was all along, since inception, used for communicating notices in various forms and orders - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 13, 15]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT |
