100 Important High Court Judgments of GST in 2022
Parina Katyal
2 Jan 2023 11:19 AM GMT
Allahabad High Court: Allahabad High Court Stays GST Demand On Payment Of Royalty To Conduct Mining Activity Case Title: M/s Jitendra Singh versus Union of India The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has stayed the GST demand on payment of royalty to conduct mining activity. GST Dept. Made Attachment Without Recording Opinion And Referring To...
Allahabad High Court:
Allahabad High Court Stays GST Demand On Payment Of Royalty To Conduct Mining Activity
Case Title: M/s Jitendra Singh versus Union of India
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has stayed the GST demand on payment of royalty to conduct mining activity.
Case Title: Varun Gupta versus Union Of India
The Allahabad High Court observed that the department had neither recorded the opinion nor referred to any tangible material which necessitated it to pass the provisional attachment order to protect the interest of the government revenue.
The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji directed the department to pay the cost of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner/assessee.
GST Dept. Can Only Seize Goods In Transit And Not From Godown : Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. versus State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 418
The Allahabad High Court has held that the goods lying in the godown cannot be seized by invoking Section 129 of the CGST Act. The power of seizure can be exercised only in the case of goods in transit and not for goods lying in godown.
The single bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has observed that it is unbelievable that two (not one) authorities of the Mobile Squad of the Commercial Tax Department chose to act with negligence. The provisions of Section 129(3) of the CGST Act could not be invoked to subject a godown premises to a search and seizure operation, the bench held.
Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost Of Rs. 50,000 For Arbitrary Cancellation of GST Registration
Case Title: Drs Wood Products Lucknow versus State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 383
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 for the arbitrary cancellation of GST registration.The single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that the arbitrary exercise of power to cancel the registration in the manner in which it has been done has adversely affected the petitioner. It has also had a negative impact on the revenues that could have flowed into the coffers of GST had the petitioner been allowed to conduct commercial activities. The actions were clearly not in consonance with the ease of doing business, the Court remarked.
Show Cause Notice Cancelling GST Registration Must Disclose Reason: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/s Ram Krishna Garg Supplier versus State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 329
The Allahabad High Court has held that the show cause notice cancelling registration must indicate the reason and the mere mentioning of violation under the CGST Act is not sufficient.
The single bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has observed that cancellation of registration has the most serious civil consequences. While Section 29(1) of the CGST Act provides for specific grounds for cancellation with effect from the date of the occurrence of certain events, Section 29(2) provides for harsher consequences, including cancellation of registration with a retrospective date.
The Court ruled that registration cannot be cancelled on the mere whims and fancies of the proper officer.
Registration Under GST Act Cannot Be Cancelled By Merely Describing The Firm As 'Bogus': Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Apparent Marketing Private Limited versus State of U.P. & Ors.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that registration under GST Act cannot be cancelled by merely describing the firm as 'bogus'.
The Single Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh held that cancellation of GST registration has serious consequences since it takes away the fundamental right of a citizen to engage in business, adding that the revenue authorities have a heavy burden to establish the existence of facts that may allow for cancellation of registration under the GST Act.
Form GST DRC-01A Is A Pre-Show Cause Notice Intimation Which Focuses On Reducing Litigation: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/s Nanhey Mal Munna Lal versus State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 129
The Allahabad High Court, consisting of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji, has ruled that Form GST DRC-01A is a pre-show cause notice intimation which focuses on reducing litigation.
Andhra Pradesh High Court:
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Rejection Of GST Refund Application By Axis Bank
Case Title: Axis Bank Ltd. versus Union of India
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of a GST refund application by Axis Bank and remanded the matter back to the original authority.
The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has referred to a circular dated 25.09.2021 issued clarifying that the insertion of rule (1A) to Rule 89 provides a time limit of 2 years. The two-year time limit would apply from the date of the introduction of the said rule and not from the date of payment of GST, the Court said.
Case Title: M/s. Gandhar oil refinery (India) Limited versus Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has relied on the notification dated 05.07.2022 and held that the period from 1st March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022, for the computation of the period of limitation for filing refund applications shall stand excluded.
The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has observed that the application for refund was not made beyond the period of limitation and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
GST Demand On Events Posted On Facebook: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Company To Approach Appellate Authority
Case Title: Vasavi Wedding & Event Planners versus State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 95
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while considering a petition challenging GST demand based on events posted on social media, held that information available on the social media platform of the petitioner showed that the said event was conducted.
The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao dismissed the petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.
Case Title: M/s. Esveeaar Distilleries Private Limited versus Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that 18% GST is payable on the manufacturing of alcohol for human consumption by way of job work.
The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has observed that alcoholic liquor is not considered a food. Services by way of job work in relation to the manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption are not eligible for 5% GST.
Bombay High Court:
Services Rendered Abroad Amounts to Export Of Services, No GST Applicable: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Jar Productions Private Limited versus Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court has held that GST does not apply to the services rendered abroad as they amount to the export of services.
Case Title: Unichem Laboratories Limited versus Union of India and Ors.
The Bombay High Court has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to issue a clarification in relation to the distribution/ reporting of the ISD credit.
The Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and Gauri Godse was dealing with a batch of writ petitions, highlighting the difficulties faced by the petitioners in the distribution/ reporting of the ISD credit.
Case Title: Ambica Fertilisers versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 148
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice S.G. Mehare and Justice R.D. Dhanuka has allowed the taxpayers to correct Form TRAN-1. The court has directed the department to consider the issue of whether Form TRAN-1 and other forms that would be filed or corrected by the petitioner, can be entertained in accordance with provisions of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 117 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 or not.
Case Title: M/s. Sanathan Textile Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India
The Bombay High Court has held that notification no. 79/2017-Customs, dated October 13, 2017, amending notification no. 16/2015-Customs and granting exemption from IGST tothe capital goods imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG Scheme), is clarificatory and curative in nature.
The division bench of Justice K.R. Sriram and Justice Arif S. Doctor has directed the department to refund in cash the IGST paid on imports of capital goods made during the period 01.07.2017 to 12.10.2017.
Limitation Period Starts After Affixing Signatures On GST Registration Cancellation Order: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ramani Suchit Malushte versus Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period would start only after the affixing of signatures on the GST registration cancellation order.
"Only on the date on which the signature of Respondent issuing authority was put on the order dated November 14, 2019, for the purpose of attestation, would time to file an appeal commence," the division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor said.
Case Title: M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
The Bombay High Court has held that the service recipient is liable to pay the GST to the government on interest under an arbitral award and it cannot be deducted from the dues payable to the service provider.
The single bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla has observed that service tax is an indirect tax, and it is possible that it may be passed on. Therefore, an assessee can certainly enter into a contract to shift its liability for service tax.
COVID-Supreme Court Order Suspending Limitation Is Applicable For Refund Under GST Act – Bombay High Court
Case Title: Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner of CGST refusing refund of GST paid by a private export company on the ground that the company's application was time barred or not filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) Act.
A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SM Modak observed that the Supreme Court's decision from March, 2020, extending the time limit prescribed under the general or special laws for proceedings due to the Covid-19 pandemic, would apply in the present case.
Issue Norms As To How Many Times Summons Can Be Issued During Investigations: Bombay High Court Directs GST Dept
Case Title: Shalaka Infra-Tech India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 64
The Bombay High Court has directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Department to issue norms as to how many times summons can be issued during investigations.
Calcutta High Court:
Interest Component Of EMI Of Loan Availed On Credit Card Is Not Exempt From IGST: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Patodia versus Citi Bank Na & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the interest component of the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) of a loan advanced by a bank on a credit card is not exempt from IGST.
The Single Bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that the services rendered by the bank by way of extending loans amounted to credit card services and hence, the interest component of the EMI of the said loan was interest involved in credit card services, which is excluded from the exemption conferred under Notification No. 9/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate), dated June 28, 2017.
Cancellation Of GST Registration Ultimately Impacts Recovery Of Taxes: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Bisweswar Midhya, Proprietor of Midhya Construction versus Superintendent, CGST
The Calcutta High Court has observed that if the registration of a dealer is cancelled, the dealer cannot carry on its business in the sense that no invoice can be raised by the dealer. This would ultimately impact the recovery of taxes, the Court noted.
Case Title: M/s. R. P. Buildcon Private Limited & Anr. versus Superintendent, CGST & CX
The Calcutta High Court has observed that since the audit proceedings under Section 65 of the CGST Act had already commenced, it is appropriate that the proceedings should be taken to their logical end. The proceedings initiated by the Anti-Evasion and Range Office for the same period will not be continued, the Court ruled.
The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya noted that three wings of the same department were proceeding against the appellants for the same period.
Calcutta High Court Directs State Government To Make Scheme Providing Industrial Incentives GST- Compliant
Case Title: Emami Agrotech Ltd. versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that industrial units cannot be kept in a limbo and denied the incentives, which were specifically promised to them, on the ground of change of the tax regime from VAT to GST.
The Single Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the issue of legitimate expectation was involved in the case, and hence, the Court directed the Department of Industry, Commerce and Enterprises, Government of West Bengal and the Finance Department, to make the Scheme providing incentives to industries GST-compliant
Delhi High Court:
Case Title: M/s. Vallabh Textiles versus Senior Intelligence Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1208
The Delhi High Court has directed the GST department to return an amount of Rs. 1.80 Crores along with 6% interest, as the recovery of tax made during the search was not voluntary. The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that no recovery of tax should be made during search, inspection, or investigation unless it is voluntary.
Delhi High Court Directs IGST Refund After Deducting Differential Amount Of Duty Drawback
Case Title: Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 949
The Delhi High Court directed the department to grant IGST refund paid on the goods exported after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the Jurisdictional Commissionerate shall be entitled to verify the extent of duty drawback availed by the petitioners and also whether they had availed duty drawback/CENVAT Credit of Central Excise & Service Tax component in respect of the exports made by them.
Physical Verification Of Business Premises For GST Registration Without Issuing Notice Is Violative Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 905
The Delhi High Court has held that the physical verification of business premises for GST registration without issuing a notice is violative of the principles of natural justice.
The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Taravitasta Ganju has noted that the proper officer opted to have the petitioner's business premises inspected, albeit without the presence of its authorised representative. Had notice or intimation been given, the glitch could have been overcome, the Court ruled.
Case Title: Loreal India Private Limited versus Union of India
The Delhi High Court has directed Loreal to deposit the principal profiteered amount after deducting the GST imposed on the net profiteered amount in six equal instalments.
GST Not Payable On Renting Of A Residential Dwelling For Personal Use: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Seema Gupta versus Union of India
The Delhi High Court has held that Goods and Service Tax is not payable on renting a residential dwelling for personal use.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh has observed that renting of a residential dwelling by a proprietor of a registered proprietorship firm, who rents it in his personal capacity for use as his own residence, and not for use in the course or furtherance of his business or on account of his proprietorship firm, shall be exempt from tax under Notification No.04/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022.
Voluntary Statement Made Before The Revenue Authorities Cannot Substitute A Statutory Pre-Show Cause Consultation Notice: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Gulati Enterprises versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 604
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a voluntary statement made before the revenue authorities cannot substitute a statutory pre-show cause consultation notice, as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as it stood before 15.10.2020.
The Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the contentions of the revenue department that because the petitioner's authorized representative gave a voluntary statement before the concerned officer, the need for issuing a pre-show cause consultation notice was waived.
GST Provisional Attachment Order Not Valid After Expiry Of 1 Year: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Pashupati Properties Estate Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Taxes
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 231
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has held that every provisional attachment order ceases to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date the order was passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act.
Gauhati High Court:
Clarificatory Circular Operates Retrospectively And Does Not Bring Anything New: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Sanjib Das versus Union of India and Ors.
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) which only clarifies the CBIC's original instructions and does not bring anything new is clarificatory in nature and operates retrospectively.
The Single Bench of Justice Devashis Baruah held that the exceptions enumerated in the clarificatory circular issued by CBIC, that enumerated exceptions with respect to holding pre-show cause notice consultation, would operate retrospectively from the date of issuance of CBIC's original instructions relating to pre-show cause notice consultation.
Betel Nuts Are Subject To Decay, Not Required For Investigation: Gauhati High Court Directs To Release
Case Title: Md. Rajibul Islam versus State of Assam
The Gauhati High Court has directed the release of seized betel nuts as the betel nuts are subject to speedy natural decay and their retention was not required for the purpose of investigation.
The single bench of Justice Robin Phukan observed that from the date of seizure till date, more than 128 days had already elapsed. The Court noted that there was no allegation of theft in respect of the seized betel nuts.
Gujarat High Court:
Case Title: Dhabriya Polywood Limited versus Union of India
The Gujarat High Court has quashed the detention order as there was a bonafide mistake in the selection of the wrong ODC vehicle type while generating the e-way bill.
The division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore observed that the goods were in transit with all the necessary documents, including the E-way bill generated from the GST portal. The goods were moved by a truck whose registration number was also correct. The only mistake was the selection of the wrong ODC vehicle type while generating the e-way bill.
Gujarat High Court Directs CBIC To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight
Case Title: M/s Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited versus Union of India
The Gujarat High Court has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to refund the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) on ocean freight within six weeks along with the statutory rate of interest.
The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India in which GST on ocean freight was struck down.
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Person Alleged Of Creating Fictitious Entity To Pass Ineligible ITC
Case Title: Mohmed Hasan Aslam Kaliwala versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 338
The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to a person alleged to have created a fictitious entity to pass an ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The single bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora directed the release of the applicant on bail, subject to a deposition of Rs. 2 Crore before the office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax.
Case Title: Amit Harishkumar Doctor versus Union of India
The Gujarat High Court has released the confiscated cash and goods as the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Department delayed issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) beyond statutory time period.
The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak has observed, "it is quite unfathomable as to why the time limit is not adhered to and issuance of the show cause notice has been delayed beyond the statutory time period and hence, intervention will be necessary at the end of this Court by keeping open the rights of the respondents to initiate adjudication process afresh in accordance with law."
Case Title: Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 46
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the power prescribed under Rule 86A of the GST Rules 2017 to block an electronic credit ledger can be exercised only when there is availability of credit in such ledger, alleged to be ineligible.
Case Title: M/s MBR Flexibles Ltd. versus Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has quashed the order passed under the GST Act on the ground that the notice as well as the order was passed on the same date, denying the opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Case Title: M/s Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India
The Gujarat High Court has issued a notice to the central and state government seeking to know the steps taken for constituting the GST Tribunal. The bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt was presiding over the petition, which involved the issue of non-formation of the GST Tribunal, which has not been formulated despite a lapse of nearly five years.
GST Refund To Be Granted To The Entity Who Has Borne The Tax Burden: Gujarat High Court Allows GST Refund To Service Recipient
Case Title: Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt versus Union Of India
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore has held that, as per Section 54 of the CGST Act, a claim of refund may be made directly by the recipient if he has borne the burden of tax.
Provisional Attachment Not To Hamper Normal Business Activities: Gujarat High court Quashes Attachment Order
Case Title: Arya Metacast Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the provisional attachment should not hamper normal business activities of the taxable person.
Dealer's GST Registration Can't Be Cancelled For Inadvertent Mistake Of CA: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s Dilipkumar Chandulal versus State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has ruled that the dealer should not be forced to pay a hefty price for the cancellation of the GST registration for the chartered accountant's mistake.
Input/Output Ratios To Be Considered For Determining Quantum Of Refund Of Unutilized GST ITC: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Messers Filatex India Ltd. versus Union Of India
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the input or output ratios must be considered for determining the quantum of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore has directed Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate the claim of the writ applicants in accordance with Sub Rule (4B) of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, by keeping in mind the formula of input or output ratio of the inputs or raw materials used in the manufacturing of the exported goods.
Dept. Can't Raise Their Hands In Despair For Technical Glitches In GST Portal: Gujarat HC Directs Dept. To Allow Manual Furnishing Of GSTR-6
Case Title: M/s Bodal Chemicals Ltd. versus Union of India
The Gujarat High Court has come down heavily on the Goods and Service Tax Department for technical glitches in the portal.
The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore observed that the writ petitioner/ taxpayer has been running from pillar to post requesting the respondents/ department to provide a solution and take care of the technical error and glitch that occurred as regards furnishing the GSTR-6 return for recording and distributing the Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit.
Department Cannot Block GST ITC Without Assigning Any Reason: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s New Nalbandh Traders versus State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the department cannot block the Input Tax Credit (ITC) without assigning any reason to the assessee.
Goods In Transit Can't Be Confiscated Under CSGT Act On Grounds Of Under-Valuation Or Wrong Route: Gujarat High Court
Case title - M/s. Karnataka Traders versus State of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 1
The Gujarat High Court has held that mere undervaluation of the goods or change of route of the consignment can't be sufficient grounds to detain the goods and vehicle under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Thus, the Bench of Justice Nisha M. Thakore quashed the entire confiscation proceedings including the notice issued u/s 130 of CGST Act against the Petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the GST.
Gujarat High Court Directs Dept. To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight Along With The Interest
Case Title: ADI Enterprises versus Union of India
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has directed the department to refund IGST on ocean freight along with the interest.
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court:
GST Registration, FSSA License Cannot Be Granted If The Premises Is Under Dispute: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Parveez Ahmad Baba versus Union Territory of J&K and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 152
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that GST registration cannot be granted if the ownership of the business owner’s premises is under dispute.
The single bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that until the dispute is settled between the parties amicably or through intervention of the Court of competent jurisdiction, neither the designated authority under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 shall issue the licence nor registration shall be accorded under the GST Act to either of the parties in respect of the premises.
Jharkhand High Court:
Recovery Proceeding Deemed To Be Stayed If Appellant Pays 10% Of Disputed Tax Amount During Pendency Of Appeal: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s Sri Ram Construction versus UOI
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has held that upon deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount during the pendency of appeals, recovery of any remaining balance is deemed to have been stayed in view of Section 107 Sub-section (6) and (7) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Show Cause Notice Containing "NA" In Column Of Date, Time, Venue Of Personal Hearing: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Adjudication Order
Case Title: M/s. Om Prakash Store versus State of Jharkhand
The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the adjudication order, observing that the notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act contained “NA”, in the column of date, time and venue of personal hearing.
The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the adjudication order was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. The order deserves to be quashed on the grounds of non-compliance with the statutory provisions of the JGST Act and for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice, it held.
Goods Or Conveyance Can't be Detained Without Service Of Detention Order: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s. AMI Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 81
The Jharkhand High Court has held that no goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods.
The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the adjudication order and the appellate order both suffered from procedural infirmities and lacked proper opportunity for the person transporting to defend himself.
Summary Of SCN In Form GST DRC-01 Cannot Substitute Requirement Of Proper SCN: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Roushan Kumar Chouhan versus Commissioner of State Tax
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the summary of show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show cause notice under section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that penalty of 100% of the tax dues imposed on the tax payer, as reflected in the Summary of the Order contained in Form GST DRC-07, is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 73(9) of the CGST Act. As per Section 73(9), the Proper Officer while passing an adjudication order can levy a penalty up to 10% of the tax dues only, the Court said.
If Assessee Disputes Interest Liability, Then Dept. Has To Follow Procedure Laid Down u/s 73 or 74 of the CGST Act: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Bluestar Malleable Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Jharkhand
The Jharkhand High Court has held that if any assessee disputes the liability of interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act, then the department has to follow the specific procedure as stipulated under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act.
The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the department had failed to follow the procedure as enshrined in Section 73 or 74 of the JGST Act.
Case Title: M/s Usha Martin Limited versus Additional Commissioner
The Jharkhand High Court has held that initiation of proceedings by the department against the petitioner under Section 73 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, for transition of CENVAT Credit alleged to be inadmissible, is not permissible.
The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that if proceedings for the transition of CENVAT credit alleged to be inadmissible are permitted to be carried out under the CGST Act, it may lead to uncertainty not only in the minds of the ordinary citizen but also in the minds of the tax authorities.
Summary of Show Cause Notice In Form DRC-01 Is Not A Substitute Of Section 74(1) Show Cause Notice: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s. Juhi Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus The State of Jharkhand
The Jharkhand High Court held that the summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 is not a substitute for show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.
The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that though the petitioner submitted their concise reply, the respondent cannot take benefit of the action as a summary of show cause notice cannot be considered as a show cause notice as mandated under Section 74(1). It is well settled that there is no estoppel against statute, and a bonafide mistake or consent by the assessee cannot confer any jurisdiction upon the proper officer. The jurisdiction must flow from the statute itself. The rules of estoppel are the rules of equity, which have no role in matters of taxation, the Court ruled.
Interest On Belated Filing Of GSTR-3B Return Not Recoverable Without Adjudication: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: R.K. Transport Private Limited versus The Union Of India Through The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise, Ranchi And Another.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 27
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that recovery of interest under CGST Act, 2017 for delay in filing the GSTR-3B return cannot be initiated without following any adjudication proceedings under the Act in the event the interest liability is disputed by the assessee.
Karnataka High Court:
Karnataka High Court Quashes CBIC Circular Imposing GST On Annuity Payments Awarded By Highway Authorities To Concessionaires
Case Title: M/s. D.P.J. Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt Ltd. versus Union of India
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) clarifying that GST is not exempt on the annuity (deferred payments) paid for the construction of roads and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.
The single bench of Justice M.I. Arun observed that a circular which clarifies the notification cannot have the effect of overruling the notification.
No Conflict Between Power To Levy GST And Power Of Municipal Corporation To Levy Advertisement Fee Or Advertisement Tax: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Hubballi Dharwad Advertisers Association (R) versus State of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj held that there is no conflict between the power to levy GST under the GST Act and the power of a municipal corporation to levy an advertisement fee or advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.
18% GST Payable On 'Pattadar Pass Book Cum Title Deed' ; Karnataka High Court Upholds AAR Ruling
Case Title: M/s. Manipal Technologies Ltd. versus State of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice S. Sujatha and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, while upholding the ruling of the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), held that 18% GST is payable on 'pattadar pass book cum title deed'.
Karnataka High Court Upholds GST & Central Excise Duty On Tobacco; Says 'Articles 246 & 246A Can Be Simultaneously Exercised'
Case Title: M/s. V.S. Products versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the notification dated July 6, 2019 issued by the Union of India by which Central Excise Duty has been levied on tobacco and tobacco products.
A single Judge bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav said, "It needs to be kept in mind that taxation is not merely a source of raising revenue but is also recognised by the fiscal tool to achieve fiscal and social objective."
Building Owner Can Claim GST Exemption If Residential Premises Leased Out Are Used As Hostel: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish versus Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court has held that an owner of a building can claim tax exemption under the Goods and Service Tax Act (GST) if the residential premises leased out are used as a hostel to house students and working professionals.
Karnataka High Court Orders GST Refund of Rs. 27 Crores Illegally Collected from Swiggy
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. versus M/s Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
The Karnataka High Court has ordered the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to refund Rs. 27 Crore, which was illegally collected from Swiggy.
Kerala High Court:
No Legislative Competence To Amend KVAT Act After Introduction Of GST Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: State Tax Officer & Anr versus Baiju A.A
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 462
The Kerala High Court has held that legislative competence to amend the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act after the introduction of the GST Act is impermissible.
The division bench of S.V. Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji has observed that the amendment made by the Finance Act of 2018 to the provisions of the erstwhile KVAT Act to enable the department to initiate assessment proceedings in respect of assessments pending as of March 31, 2018, was illegal because the KVAT Act has already been repealed.
Officer Is Duty Bound To Consider Explanation Offered For Expiry Of The E-Way Bill: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sanskruthi Motors versus Joint Commissioner (Appeals) II
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 458
The Kerala High Court has held that the officer is duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for expiry of the e-way bill.
Assessee Has Statutory Right To File An Appeal Even After Voluntary Payment Of GST/Penalty: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hindustan Steel and Cement versus Assistant State Tax Officer
The Kerala High Court has held that assessees have a statutory right to file an appeal even after the voluntary payment of GST or penalty.
The single bench of Justice Gopinath has observed that culmination of proceedings in respect of a person who seeks to make payment of tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a), does not result in the generation of a summary of an order under Form DRC-07, and that it does not curtail the right of the person to file an appeal under Section 107.
Case Title: M/s. G&C Infra Innovations versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has directed the GST department to facilitate revision of Form GST TRAN-1 and filing of Form GST TRAN-2, by making necessary arrangements on the web portal.
Credit Notes Not Affecting Input Tax Can't Be Treated As Taxable Turnover: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Saji Thomas versus Assistant Commissioner
The Kerala High Court bench of Justices S.V. Bhatti, Bechu Kurian Thomas and Basant Balaji has held that credit notes not affecting input tax already deposited cannot be treated as taxable turnover under the extended meaning of Explanation VII to Section 2 (iii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act.
Taxpayer Can't Approach High Court To Avoid Mandatory Pre-Deposits While Availing Appellate Remedy: Kerala HC
Case Title: Nico Tiles versus State Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a taxpayer cannot seek to avoid mandatory pre-deposits as a remedy to an appeal under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Madhya Pradesh High Court:
Advance Ruling Can't Be Sought After The Receipt Of The Notice: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s Saisanket Enterprise versus Authority of Advance Ruling
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that application under Section 97 of the CGST Act for obtaining the advance ruling cannot be made before the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) during the pendency of the issue before the authority and after the receipt of the notice.
The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amar Nath has observed that the petitioner approached the authority to obtain the advance ruling only after a search was conducted in which the evasion of SGST was found, which had resulted in the issuance of a show-cause notice. By the notice, the petitioner had been called upon to pay the remaining amount of GST/SGST liability and submit the reply.
'Mistake In E-way Bill Was Human Error' | Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Penalty Under CGST Act
Case Title: Maharaja Cables (C/O Maxwell Logistic Pvt Ltd) versus Commissioner (GST) State Tax Indore (M.P.)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed the penalty imposed under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on a private company after the petitioner argued that the mistake while generating the e-way bill was an inadvertent human error.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Virendra Singh, while allowing the appeal, observed that the mistake in the e-way bill was bonafide. However, the court said the authorities will be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for the imposition of a minor penalty while treating the mistake in question to be a clerical mistake as per Circular dated 14.09.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Dept. Failed To Establish Element Of Tax Evasion: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Penalty
Case Title: M/s Daya Shanker Singh versus State Of Madhya Pradesh
The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the penalty for the expiry of e-way bill as the department failed to establish that there existed any element of evasion of tax, fraudulent intent or negligence on the part of the petitioner.
The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta observed that the delay of almost 4:30 hours before which the E-way Bill expired appeared to be bona-fide and without establishing fraudulent intent and negligence on the part of the assessee, the notice/order imposing penalty could not have been passed.
Madras High Court:
Case Title: M/s. Vadivel Pyrotech Private Limited versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 438
The Madras High Court has held that ASMT 10 is mandatory before proceeding to issue GST DRC-01. Failure to issue ASMT 10 in respect of the discrepancies forming the subject matter in GST DRC-01 culminating in GST DRC-07, would vitiate the entire proceedings.
The single bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that any proceeding in GST DRC-01A/1 culminating in an Order in GST DRC-07, if pursuant to scrutiny under Section 61 of the TNGST Act, ought to be preceded by the issuance of Form ASMT 10.
Show Cause Notice Issued To Driver Of Consignment Is Not Adequate: Madras High Court
Case Title: Ramki Cements Private Limited versus State Tax Officer
The Madras High Court has held that the show-cause notice issued to the driver of the consignment is not adequate.
The single bench of Justice S. Srimathy quashed the demand for tax and penalty in Form GST MOV-09 and directed the department to issue a fresh notice.
Interest Leviable On Belated Remittance of GST Even If Credit In Cash/Credit Ledgers Is Available: Madras High Court
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor Private Limited versus Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
The Madras High Court has ruled that interest on late GST remittances is levied even if credit in electronic cash or credit ledgers is available.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that unless an assessee actually files a return and debits the respective registers, the authorities cannot be expected to assume that available credits will be set-off against tax liability.
Transporter Of Goods May Seek Release Of Only The Conveyance: Madras High Court
Case Title: TCI Freight versus Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
The Madras High Court has held that the transporter may seek release of only the conveyance upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions.
The division bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth observed that the phrase 'person transporting the goods' in Sections 129(1) and (6) means the owner or his agent who has contracted to supply the goods, and not the transporter who will provide the carriage for the same.
GST Department Did Not Recognize Concept Of 'Working Day' And 'Holiday' In Matters Of Interception, Seizure, Detention: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. D.K. Enterprises versus Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Madras High Court has held that in the matters of interception, seizure, and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of "working day" and "holiday" since substantial civil rights of the parties were at stake.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that neither the assessee nor the department could have the luxury of reference to a holiday to delay or protract the proceedings. The acts of interception and retention, though an invasion of the rights of citizens, have been accorded statutory sanction in pursuance of the aims and objects of the Goods and Services Act. Thus, it was imperative that the intrusive acts be carried out in strict compliance with the statutory provisions, the Court said.
GST Registration Cancellation: Madras High Court Directs Changes In Architecture Of GST Portal
Case Title: M. Mallika Mahal versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
The Madras High Court has directed the GST department to take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable charges in the architecture of the GST Web Portal to allow the petitioners to file their returns and pay the tax/penalty/fine.
Timelines For Uploading TRAN-1 For Seeking Credit And Revision Of Credit Cannot Be One: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
The Madras High Court has held that the timelines for uploading TRAN 1 for seeking credit as well as seeking revision of the credit cannot be one and the same as it leads to an unworkable position.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the time limit for revision of a TRAN-1 return cannot be identical to the timeline for filing a return seeking transition. The purpose of revision is to enable correction or modification of a return of transition. The Court remarked that some additional time, over and above the timeline granted for a TRAN-1 return, must be provided.
No Demand Of GST, Interest And Penalty Can Be Made In Form DRC-01A Without Issuance of Section 74(1) Notice: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. Anantham Retail Private Limited versus State Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
While quashing the assessment order, the Madras High Court held that a demand for GST, interest, and penalty on Form DRC-01A cannot be made without the issuance of a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.
The single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar observed that the department/respondent had not followed the procedure. After issuance of notice on Form DRC-01A, the department issued Form GST DRC-01A. If the petitioner has any objections and has not paid the tax as determined, a show cause notice must be issued under Section 74(1) of the TNGST Act, the Court said.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Harassment By GST Department
Case Title: Sridhar versus Superintendent of GST
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
The Madras High Court has dismissed the petition alleging harassment by the GST department.
The single bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the term "harassment" is so subjective that it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criterion. The petitioner, having given a complaint, is bound to cooperate with the police for an inquiry, the Court said.
GST Dept. Should Issue DRC-1 Notice, Grant Fair Opportunity Of Hearing Before Passing Assessment Order: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. V.R.S. Traders versus Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Madras High Court has held that the DRC-01 notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act must be issued before passing the assessment order.
Mere Signing Of Statement Admitting Tax Liability, Making Payments Under Stress Of Investigation, Doesn't Amount To Self-Ascertainment: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. Shri Nandhi Dhall Mills India Private Limited versus Senior Intelligence Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has held that merely because an assessee has, under the stress of investigation, signed a statement admitting tax liability and having also made a few payments as per the statement, it cannot lead to self-assessment or self-ascertainment.
GST ITC Refund Can't Be Denied Even If Taxpayer Has Claimed Duty Drawback: Madras High Court
Case Title: Numinous Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd. versus The Commissioner of Customs
The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Sarvanan has held that the refund of input tax credit (ITC) cannot be denied even if the taxpayer has claimed duty drawback.
Orissa High Court:
Case Title: Durga Raman Patnaik versus Additional Commissioner of GST
The Orissa High Court has held that the Appellate Authority should have borne in mind the predicament faced by taxpayers on the introduction of a new set of procedures by way of the promulgation of the CGST Act and rules.
The division bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Murahari Sri Raman has observed that it preferred to exercise its writ jurisdiction to undo prejudice and injustice caused to the petitioner as the Appellate Tribunal has not yet been constituted as per Section 109 of the CGST Act. There was no alternative remedy available for the petitioner to question the veracity of the order passed in the first appeal, the Court remarked.
Commissioner Can't Allow Deposit Of Interest Payment In Instalments: Orissa High Court
Case Title: M/s. P.K. Ores Pvt. Ltd. @ M/S. PK Minings Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Sales Tax
The Orissa High Court bench of Justices Jawant Singh and Murahari Sri Raman has held that the Commissioner of CT & GST is not empowered to allow the deposit of interest payments in instalments.
ITC Transfer From One State To Another Is Not An Inward Supply: Orissa High Court
Case Title: M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. versus Union of India
The Orissa High Court bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice M.S. Raman has ruled that an input service distributor (ISD) can claim ITC only in the case of an inward supply, and an ITC transfer from one state to another is not an inward supply.
Punjab and Haryana High Court :
"Intention To Evade Tax" Must Be Directly Connected to Activity Of Trader: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: M/s Raghav Metals versus State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 37
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain has held that the intention to evade tax must be directly connected to the activity of the trader.
Claim Of Refund And Interest Shall Be Dealt Under The Existing Law On Central Excise And Not As Per CGST Act; Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects The Plea Of Revenue
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula versus M/S Riba Textiles Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 46
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the revenue department cannot take the plea of transfer of jurisdiction due to the GST regime against assessee's claim for refund of central excise duty and interest.
Case Title: Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India & Ors.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a demand by the GST Department against Genpact India and held that subcontracting for a service is not an "intermediary" service.
Rajasthan High Court:
GST Circular Contra To GST Act, Can't Deny The Claim For ITC Refund; Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited versus Union of India
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the GST circular dated 31.03.2020, repugnant to the parent legislation, cannot be applied to oust the legitimate claim for an accumulated ITC refund.
The division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has observed that the supplying dealer would be entitled to claim a refund of accumulated unutilised tax credit under Section 54 (3) (ii) of the CGST Act irrespective of the fact that the input and output supplies are the same by ignoring the circular dated 31.03.2020.
Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty
Case Title: Sudershan Lal Gupta & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the levy of GST on reverse charge basis on royalty of mining extraction.
Noting that the Coordinate Benches of the Rajasthan High Court, in several cases, have dismissed the writ petitions challenging the levy of GST on royalty, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta ruled that it was bound by the final orders passed by the Coordinate Benches.
Case Title: Sohan Singh Rao versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 112
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has refused to grant bail to the director of a company who was allegedly involved in goods and service tax (GST) evasion worth Rs. 869 crores. The court noted that the Supreme Court in its various decisions held that an economic offender should not be dealt with as a general offender because economic offenders run a parallel economy and they are a serious threat to the national economy.
Rajasthan High Court Upholds Section 54 CGST Act Pertaining To Tax Refund
Case Title: M/s Triveni Electrodes versus Union Of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 34
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has upheld the vires of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The same pertains to Refund of tax.
Akin To Power To Issue & Serve Summons Under Order V CPC: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Constitutionality Of S.70 Rajasthan GST Act 2017
Case Title: M/s S.k. Metal versus Assistant Commissioner, B II Enforcement Wing II, Department of Commercial Taxes
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 38
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the vires of Section 70 of Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 which provides for Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.
Rajasthan High Court Directs GST Dept. To Reimburse The Pre Deposit In View Of CIRP Of Binani Cement
Case Title: M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited versus Assistant Commissioner
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta has directed the GST department to reimburse amounts deposited by Binani Cement as a mandatory statutory obligation to the Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement.
Rajasthan High Court Restrains GST Dept. From Recovery Of GST On Royalty Paid On Account Of Excavation Of Sand For Brick
Case Title: Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog versus UOI
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has restrained the GST department from recovering GST on royalty paid on account of excavation of sand for brick.
Telangana High Court:
Telangana High Court Holds Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 To Be Unconstitutional
Case Title: M/s. Sri Sri Engineering Works & Ors. versus Deputy Commissioner (CT), & Ors.
The Telangana High Court has held that the Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 is unconstitutional.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice P. Madhavi Devi has observed that the intention of Parliament in ushering in the GST regime through the Constitution Amendment Act, enactment of the CGST Act and simultaneous enactment of various State GST Acts by the State Legislatures, was to avoid a multiplicity of taxes by subsuming those indirect taxes into a single tax called GST. However, the amendments brought in by the Second Amendment Act were wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the Constitution Amendment Act read with the CGST Act and the TGST Act.
Investigation Post Filing Application Would Not Debar Applicant From Seeking Advance Ruling: Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/s. Srico Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus Telangana State Authority for Advance Ruling
The Telangana High Court has held that the investigation post-filing of the application would not debar the applicant from seeking an advance ruling.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyana and Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy has observed that the word "proceedings" has neither been defined in Chapter XVII nor in the definition clause, i.e., in Section 2 of the CGST Act. The inquiry or investigation would not come within the ambit of the word "proceedings", the Court held.
ITC Refund Admissible If Output Supply Tax Rate Is Less Than Inputs Tax Rate: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Micro Systems and Services Sole Proprietorship versus Union Of India
The Telangana High Court has held that refund of accumulated input tax credit (ITC) on account of inverted structure would be allowed if accumulation of ITC is on account of the rate of tax on output supply being less than the rate of tax on inputs (same goods) at the same point of time.
Uttarakhand High Court:
Cancellation Of GST Registration Affects Right To Livelihood, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title: Vinod Kumar versus Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Ors.
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the cancellation of GST registration affects the right to livelihood and the writ petition is maintainable.
The division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe has observed that the appellant is denied his right to livelihood because of the cancellation of his GST Registration number. He has no remedy to appeal. It shall be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as the right to livelihood springs from the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
