2023-TIOL-1579-HC-MAD-CT
Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. Chief Secretary/CCT
Central Sales Tax (CST) - Petitioner, inter alia , seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner to issue/generate Form ‘C' declaration under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for their purchase of Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) effected from outside the State of Tamil Nadu - When the petitioner enquired about the difficulty in this regard, he was given to understand that upon introduction of GST w.e.f. July 1, 2017, Code No.302, inter alia , pertaining to ENA has been blocked by the respondent department.
Held: . In view of the fact that in the recent 52nd GST Council Meeting held on 07.10.2023, a decision was taken to keep the ENA used for manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption outside the purview of GST, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to issue Form 'C' from 01.07.2017 to till date for all the purchases made by the petitioner from outside the State or inside the State and further, this Court also directs the respondent to keep open the web portal for the ENA commodity, so that the petitioner can upload the purchases of ENA along with 'C' Form etc. - Further, in the event of the web portal is not opened, the petitioner is directed to file relevant forms/applications manually in which case, the respondents are directed to consider the same and issue the Form 'C' - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 8, 9]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT 2023-TIOL-1578-HC-MUM-GST Makersburry India Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra
GST - The present petition was filed to challenge an order passed by the Appellate Commissioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 20 of the IGST Act 2017 r/w Section 107 of the CGST Act - The issue in the proceedings pertain to the cancellation of the Petitioner's registration as granted under the provisions of the said Acts, the genesis being a show cause notice dated 22 August, 2022 - The only reason as set out in the show cause notice to cancel the registration - The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner submitted a reply to the Show Cause Notice contending that the Directors of the Company had appeared before the Designated Officer and had given their respective statements as also submitted all the relevant documents - It is contended by the Petitioner that as initially the documents submitted were not accepted by the department, they were forwarded by email - It is also pointed out by the Petitioner that all the documents were loaded on the portal while obtaining the registration, the details of which were also set out in the reply - Further, the staff of the Department had visited the Petitioner's registered place of business, as also were furnished documents - It is hence the Petitioner's case that the petitioner had cooperated with the Department on all aspects.
Held - There is much substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner - At the outset, we may observe that the Show Cause Notice itself was defective, as it did not set out any reasons/grounds which could be responded by the Petitioner against the cancellation of the Petitioner's registration - The reasons which were furnished were undoubtedly vague - It is difficult to conceive as to how such contents of the notice could be responded when no reasons to support such allegation were provided in the Show Cause Notice - The order dated 17 October, 2022 passed by the designated officer cancelling the Petitioner's registration was inherently defective, as again no reasons were furnished dealing with the case as set out by the Petitioner in the reply as filed to the Show Cause Notice - There is no discussion whatsoever on any of the documents - Things did not stop at this, as the appellate authority before whom all such materials were furnished again proceeded on total non-application of mind of the materials before it - As noted above, several documents although were submitted by the Petitioner for consideration of the appellate authority, there is not a semblance of consideration of any of these documents, much less any discussion on these documents so as to consider the case of the Petitioner against cancellation of its registration - Time and again the Department is not required to be told by the Court as to what would be the position in law as also the correct approach in law, the officers needs to follow - Repeatedly the Court being called upon to adjudicate similar issues - There has to be a sense of responsibility and accountability, any mechanical approach in this regard, even to justify such action, in our opinion cannot be the stand of the Department - Hence the SCN and the consequential order stand quashed: HC
- Writ petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT 2023-TIOL-1577-HC-AHM-GST
D R Cotton Company Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Issue relates to cancellation of registration certificate of petitioners - On perusal of SCN for cancellation of registration as well as order of cancellation, it appears that authorities have not followed the decision of this Court in case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works 2022-TIOL-504-HC-AHM-GST - In view of said decision of this Court, impugned order of cancellation of registration is quashed and set aside with a liberty to authorities to issue a fresh notice with detailed reasons for cancellation, if any recorded by authorities - With regard to attachment of bank account of petitioner, petitioner, does not press the prayer for same with a request to direct the authorities to decide the SCN within stipulated time - It was submitted that authorities shall decide the impugned SCN issued by authorities within a period of four weeks: HC
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT 2023-TIOL-1576-HC-DEL-GST Vab Apparel LLP Vs Commissioner Delhi GST
GST - Petitioner impugns order dated 23.05.2022 cancelling their registration w.e.f 05.03.2018 - SCN alleged that the registration was obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
Held: SCN is bereft of any material particulars - It neither specifies the fraud alleged to have been committed by the petitioner nor any alleged wilful misstatement made by the petitioner - The SCN also did not mention any facts that were allegedly suppressed by the petitioner - Only reasons stated in the impugned order are that the petitioner's response to the query was not proper; no documentary evidence had been produced by the taxpayer; and none had appeared for personal hearing - The impugned order neither refers to any fraud that was found to have been committed by the petitioner nor mentions any misstatement allegedly made by the petitioner - Moreover, although the SCN did not propose the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect, yet the petitioner's GST registration has been cancelled with effect from 05.03.2018, that is, the date on which the said registration was granted - Merely because the petitioner's shop was found closed, absent anything more, is not a ground for cancellation of petitioner's GST registration - Impugned order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is set aside - Petition allowed: High Court [para 4, 6, 7, 11]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT |
