Snippets of important High court rulings in GST

Snippets of important High court rulings in GST: 

M/s H M INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD

The supplier whose property is attached would be in a position to file objection to the effect that the property attached was or is not liable to attachment under sub-rule (5) of rule 159 only if a copy of such order is furnished to such supplier.

M/s NORTH WESTERN CARRYING CORPORATION

Interim relief granted by staying further proceedings to the impugned show cause notice (SCN) issued under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 on the ground of petitioner that the Section 73 has been repealed by section 173 of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence the SCN is without jurisdiction.

M/s P K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The case relates to validation of GST returns arising because of the problems faced while migrating from VAT to GST regime.

MONO STEEL INDIA LTD

The respondent revenue should explain the expediency and the rationale behind ordering attachment of all the bank accounts of the petitioner under Section 83 of CGST Act and virtually bringing its business to a grinding halt.

LEO LOGISTICS

Petitioner failed to upload form GST TRAN-1 but due to system error. Petitioners to apply to the Nodal officer for issue resolution in the light of the Paragraph 5 of the CBIC Circular 39/13/2018 dated 03.04.2018.

EDAYAR METALS

Petitioners to apply to the Nodal officer for resolution of issues faced while furnishing GST- TRAN-1.

TORRENT POWER LTD

The meaning of “transmission and distribution of electricity” does not change either for the negative list regime or the GST regime. Accordingly, the impugned services (Paragraph 4(1) of Circular no. 34/8/2018- GST dated 1^st March, 2018) which stood included within the ambit of transmission and distribution of electricity during the pre-negative list regime cannot now be sought be excluded from “transmission and distribution of electricity” service (included in the list of negative services under section 66D (k) of the Finance Act or exemption notification no. 12/2017- CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017) by merely issuing a clarificatory circular, that too, with retrospective effect. By the clarificatory circular, the respondents seek to give a different interpretation of the very same services as against the clarification issued for the pre-negative list regime.

The services provided by the petitioner are in the nature of composite supply and therefore, in view of the provisions of clause (a) of section 8 of the CGST Act, the tax liability thereof has to be determined by treating such composite same as a supply of the principal supply of transmission and distribution of electricity. Consequently, if the principal supply of transmission and distribution of electricity is exempt from levy of GST, the tax liability of the related services shall be determined accordingly.

Accordingly, paragraph 4(1) of the impugned circular is hereby struck down as being ultra vires the provisions of section 8 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as well as Notification No.12/2017- CT (R ) serial No.25.

PSN AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD

The petitioner has raised a prima facie issue, which needs Court’s attention. Authority will, therefore, not act on the clarification given at Sl. No. 5 of Circular 76/50/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 (it was clarified that taxable value for the purposes of GST shall include the TCS amount collected under the provisions of the Income Tax Act) pending disposal of the present writ petition.

M/s POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES LTD

The petitioner shall submit revised FORM GST TRAN-I and the resultant FORM GST TRAN-2 manually in view of the error in filing the same on account of the technical reasons. The respondent shall accept and transmit it into the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner.

VARUN TRADERS

Writ petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous since the GST portal was opened and the petitioner’s GSTIN was reinstated as per the previous order of the Court.

COASTAL FREEZ TECH AND SANITARIES

Petitioners to apply to the Nodal officer for resolution of issues faced while furnishing GST- TRAN-1.

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD

Petitioner company raised various issues including denial of Tran-2 credit, north east exemption, claim of extra grammage, etc. Matter re-listed for hearing on 16^th April.

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY

Respondent revenue is directed to forthwith provisionally release the seized goods of the petitioner under sub-section (6) of section 67 of the CGST Act. The interest of justice has been served as the petitioner is furnishing bank guarantee for the amount remained after deposit of tax & reversal of ITC.

PHILODEN INDUSTRIES PVT LTD

Petitioner is allocated to the State Tax authorities under the GST regime. Despite this, the Nodal Officer of the respondent has forwarded the issue of technical glitches raised by the petitioner to the concerned GSTN authorities. Petitioner to make an application for allowing the credit of the central excise and duty under the Form-GST TRAN-1 to both the authorities, namely, the State Tax Authorities as well as the Central Tax Authorities.

R K MOTORS

The vehicle transporting two wheelers instead of halting at Virudhunagar, had moved towards Sivakasi and at 7 km, it was intercepted by the respondent roving squad. It was held that, when the tax in respect of the goods have already been remitted and when the transportation of goods is duly covered by proper documentation, the respondent ought to have taken a sympathetic and indulgent view of the lapse committed by the driver of the vehicle. The detention order suffer from vice of gross unreasonableness and disproportionality. The petitioner are directed to pay Rs. 5000 on account of minor lapse in line with the circular dated 14.09.2018.

STOVE KRAFT PVT LTD

Vs

ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER

Goods and Vehicles of the petitioner were detained on the ground that separate e-way bills have to be generated for each of the invoices. There may be practical difficulty for the Department in tracking the invoices but nonetheless, Goods and vehicles of the petitioner shall be released on the petitioner executing a simple bond.

HM INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD

Vs

COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE

The petitioner has already reversed input tax credit to the tune of Rs.13,28,00,000/- Therefore, considering that the amount paid by reversing input tax credit, the interest of the Revenue is sufficiently secured. Therefore, the provisional attachment of the bank accounts made under Section 83 of GST Act is no longer justified.

KERALA AGENCIES LAKSHMI BUILDING

Vs

STATE TAX OFFICER

Petitioner to apply nodal officer as per CBIC Circular 39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 within two weeks and who will within a week thereafter, look into the issue and facilitate the petitioner’s uploading FORM GST TRAN-1.

STEEL HYPERMART INDIA PVT LTD/ M/s SINGHI BUILDTECH PVT LTD Vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

A valid authorization in the prescribed format – GST INS-1 has been issued by the Additional Commissioner to conduct inspection/search/seizure of the premises in question. The justice would be sub-served in directing the Revenue to unseal the premises in question on 05.02.2019 at 11.00 a.m., which is convenient to the petitioner and the petitioner shall cooperate for inspection/search of the premises in question, including the computer system.

VIKAS GOEL AND ANOTHER Vs CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COMMISSIONERATE GURUGRAM

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence i.e. allegation of bogus billings, adjustments of amount without any transportation or sale of goods, etc., only paper transactions and amounts have been adjusted & wrongly claimed relief of more than Rs. 80 crores, there are justifiable grounds to arrest the petitioners under Section 69 of the CGST Act and further in view of the fact that case involves evasion of more than Rs. 80 crores of tax under the CGST and offence is punishable with imprisonment for a period of five years and complaint is stated to have already been filed, I do not find any ground to grant benefit of regular bail to the petitioners.

GLOBAL ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS Vs UNION OF INDIA

Enacting legislation or issuing Notification/Circular could not confer a right to challenge unless the litigant is affected by the action initiated by the executive in furtherance of such legislation/administrative Circular/Notification more particularly, in taxing statutes. Cause of action is sine qua non for challenging such legislation/Notification/Circular. The writ Court cannot adjudicate upon such matters in vacuum. Adjudication of such issues sans any cause of action would be merely academic, consuming public time de hors the litigants waiting in serpentine queue seeking justice before the courts for the relief/s sought for, arising out of the cause of action. The petitioner involved in construction activity or works contract would not be suffice to examine the constitutional vires of the Act and the related Notification/Circular unless the cause of action emerges.

PERFECT BORING PVT LTD

Vs

UNION OF INDIA

The object of the Section 83 of CGST Act is to protect the interest of the Government revenue. In the facts of the present case, attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner has resulted into various hardships to the petitioner which would adversely affect its business and which may result in loss of revenue to the Government, instead if the petitioner provides for some security towards its outstanding dues, the interest of the petitioner as well as the revenue can be protected.

SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS INDIA PVT LTD Vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER

Petitioners’ plea that the State lacks the vires to engraft Section 174 into Kerala SGST Act, 2017 is rejected.

HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT LTD Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX

On furnishing the Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty as provided under Rule 141 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and simple bond without sureties for the value of the goods, the goods and the vehicle shall be released expeditiously.

BIJU M PROPRIETOR, PMR ENTERPRISES Vs UNION OF INDIA

Petitioner to apply nodal officer as per CBIC Circular 39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 within two weeks and who will within a week thereafter, look into the issue and facilitate the petitioner’s uploading FORM GST TRAN-1.

LALITBHAI NATVARLAL PATEL Vs ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DGGI

By way of interim arrangement, the respondent No.1 is directed to release the attachment over the bank accounts of the petitioner referred to hereinabove, subject to Shri Ashwinkumar Jayantibhai Patel and Shri Jashvantkumar Jayantibhai Patel, father and uncle of Mitesh Ashwinkumar Patel, one of the Directors of the company, permitting attachment of the property described for release of the bank accounts. Shri Ashwinkumar Jayantibhai Patel and Shri Jashvantkumar Jayantibhai Patel shall also file an undertaking before this court in respect of the property which has been offered by them for attachment for release of the bank accounts of M/s. Nandeshwari Steel Limited within a period of one week from today. To secure the interest of the revenue, the petitioner shall also maintain an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in its Current Account No. XX maintained with the Axis Bank Limited, Asarwa Branch, Ahmedabad.