Rectification of mistake - migration to GST - defect in issuance of ID/password inasmuch as instead of containing the PAN number of the partnership firm, it depicts the PAN number of one of its partner - Held that: - a week's time sought for getting instructions and to ensure that the mistake, if any, is rectified and a fresh ID/password with the correct PAN number is issued to the petitioner so that there may not be difficulty in the migration of the registration certificated and consequently, filing of the return for the month of July and August, 2017 - petition allowed.
Classification of goods - water Tank Assembly of Aluminium metal - to be classified under chapter 8607 or chapter 7611 of the Tariff? - HELD THAT:- In the present case the applicant M/s ASL Industries Limited sales water tank which are not common use in general market. Since, they are manufactured as per specific design provided by the central railway and to be fitted in passenger coaches hence it is a part of railway bogies.
The specially designed water tank assembly specifically made for Indian railways is falling under the HSN Code-8607 and the same has been specified in the entry no- 241 in notification no- 1/2017 dated 28.06.2017 of schedule I as notified u/s 5 (1) of the IGST Act (act no-13 of 2017) shall be taxed @5%.
Confiscation of goods - detention under Section 129 of the CGST and SGST Acts - case of petitioner is that the documents that accompanied the goods was absence of Form KER-1 declaration and that since Form KER-1 declaration was uploaded and made available to the first respondent immediately on receipt of notice, there is no justification for the continued detention of the goods - Held that: - A combined reading of Sections 129 and 130, especially the provision contained in sub section (6) of Section 129 indicates that the detention of the goods is contemplated under the statutes only when it is suspected that the goods are liable to confiscation. This aspect is seen clarified by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in the FAQs published by them on 31.3.2017 also. Section 130 dealing with the confiscation of goods indicates beyond doubt that the confiscation of goods is contemplated under the statutes only when a taxable supply is made otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in the statutes and the Rules made there under with the intent to evade payment of tax. If that be so, mere infraction of the procedural Rules like Rules 55 and 138 of the State GST Rules cannot result in detention of goods, though they may result in imposition of penalty.
The detention of goods merely for infraction of the procedural Rules in transactions which do not amount to taxable supply, is without jurisdiction.
Extension of time period for filing of GST Tran-1 - petitioner has alleged in the petition that despite making several efforts on the last date for filing of the application, the electronic system of the respondent no.2 did not respond, as a result of which the petitioner is likely to suffer loss of the credit that it is entitled to by passage of time - Held that: - the respondents are directed to reopen the portal within two weeks from today. In the event they do not do so, they will entertain the application of the petitioner manually and pass orders on it after due verification of the credits as claimed by the petitioner - decided in favor of petitioner.
Detention of goods - inter-state sale - goods not accompanied by valid documents as prescribed under the State Goods and Service Tax Rules (for first three consignments) - absence of invoice evidencing the sale (for fourth consignment) - Held that: - it is not in dispute that there is no document prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act and Rules for the purposes of covering an interstate movement in respect of consignments which have to suffer tax under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, the detention on the part of the respondents cannot be held to be valid and justified.
In respect of the 4th consignment, the detention is justified inasmuch as what is shown in Ext.P3 delivery chalan is that the transaction is an interstate sale, whereas the document accompanying is only a chalan and not the invoice which is a prescribed document to evidence a sale.
The 1st respondent directed to release the three consignments, to the petitioner, on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment before the said respondent - As regards the third consignmen, the respondents are directed to complete the adjudication proceedings in respect of the detention of the said consignment within a period of one week - petition disposed off.
Detention of goods - surgical gloves - detention on the ground that the goods were not accompanied by the document provided for under Rule 138(2) State SGST Rules - Held that: - the power of detention contemplated under Section 129 of the SGST Act can be exercised only in respect of goods which are liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the SGST Act; that there is no taxable supply when goods are transported on delivery chalans so long as the authenticity of the delivery chalan is not doubted and that therefore, such goods cannot be detained merely for infraction of Rule 138(2) of the State SGST Rules.
Detention also on the ground that goods were intended to be supplied to an unregistered firm - Held that: - The learned Government Pleader, in the circumstances, did not attempt to support the impugned detention on the said reason. Instead, the learned Government Pleader attempted to support the impugned detention on the reason that the delivery chalan that accompanied the goods was not one prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in the State SGST Rules - The defect, if any, of the delivery chalan being not a reason mentioned in Ext.P2 notice, the same cannot be permitted to be urged to sustain the detention, for, the same is not the reason for the detention.
The impugned detention is held to be illegal and the respondent is directed to release the consignment to the petitioner forthwith - petition allowed.
Validity of Tender process initiated by the Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region by a notice inviting tender dated April 27, 2017 - Held that: - action of the authorities in obtaining information from the participants as to the tax implications cannot faulted - On evaluation, the authorities found the price quoted by the successful bidder to be lower than that of the petitioner after taking GST implications. Such a decision cannot faulted as being perverse - there is no material irregularity in the decision making process of the respondent authorities or their decision warranting an interference by the writ Court - petition dismissed.
Seizure of goods - discrepancy in the quantity - also, penalty imposed on the ground that the goods, started their journey one week after the date of the invoice - Held that: - discrepancy as regards quantity has been resolved and it is accepted to the department that the quantity of goods as disclosed in the documents is the same as found on physical verification - also, reason for which penalty imposed, prima facie cannot be the ground to seize the goods or to impose penalty.
Subject to the petitioner furnishing security equal to the value of the goods and tax payable, in the form of indemnity bond, the vehicle along with goods shall be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith - petition allowed.
Seizure of imported goods - penalty - seizure on the ground that the E-Way Bill was not found accompanying the goods though admittedly, the goods were being imported against regular Tax Invoice - Held that: - it does appear that the E-Way Bill had been downloaded and produced though with some delay but before conclusion of the penalty proceedings - there is no allegation of evasion of tax liability established either from the reading of the show cause notice or the seizure order or the penalty order the consequential penalty imposed appear to have been occasioned upon a mere technical breach and not on account of any intention to evade tax - penalty and seizure order could not sustain - petition allowed.
Difficulty in filing e-return - problem in the portal - waiver of penalty - Held that: - taking note of the fact that the penalty fee has been waived for three months i.e. July, August and September 2017 and since the portal has been activated, no further orders are required in this writ petition - petition disposed off.
Improper implementation of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act (IGST) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST) - increasing the flying squad in State Level, District Level, Zonal Level to monitor the movement of goods and E-Way Bills - Held that: - Government has issued Notification No. 27/2017-Central Tax, New Delhi, dated 30. 08. 2017 - the counter-affidavit of the second respondent has answered the prayer Nos. (a) to (d) and in the light of the stand taken by the petitioner, this Court directed him to submit his response to the Notification, dated 30. 08. 2006 - Writ Petition is closed
IGST on sale consideration - Warehousing of imported goods - double payment of IGST - Held that: - Learned counsel for the respondents would obtain instructions on the said aspect and clarify the position in the counter affidavit - Re-list on 8th March, 2018.
Release of detained goods - Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Held that: - the writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority to complete the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of the statutes referred to above, within a week from the date of production of a copy of the judgment - It is is also directed that if the petitioner complies with Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the goods detained shall be released to him forthwith.
Seizure of goods along with vehicles - goods were not accompanied by an e-way bill generated by the recipient trader of Andhra Pradesh State/Telangana State - validity of G.O. Ms. No. 309, dated 24-7-2017/G.O. Ms. No. 180, dated 9-8-2017 - HELD THAT:- As the State Legislature is competent to make laws only with reference to the intra-State movement of goods or services, Rule 138 has to be construed as being applicable only to such goods or services. This being the position, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that G.O.Ms. No. 309, dated 24-7-2017, as extended by G.O. Ms. No. 446, dated 3-10-2017, upto 31-12-2017, issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh, and G.O. Ms. No.180, dated 9-8-2017, issued by the State of Telangana, are not enforceable insofar as the inter-State movement of goods and services is concerned.
In view of the prima facie findings arrived at by this Court hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the detention of goods along with vehicles by the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana only on the ground of non-generation of e-waybill by the traders of their respective States receiving the goods, is not permissible.
The goods along with the vehicles belonging to the petitioners shall be released on their executing a bond to the effect that in the event of determination of tax liability, they will pay the tax along with the penalty, if any - Petition allowed.
Restriction on Input Tax credit under GST - Held that: - It is open to the petitioner to claim whatever it wish to; in the event the credit sought is denied, the respective entitlement of the parties shall be subject to the final decision - notice issued.
The Delhi High Court ordered the matter to be heard in greater detail and scheduled a hearing for 25.01.2018. The petitioners were allowed to proceed and claim credit or pay duty, with any duty payments subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.
Input tax credit - credit on SGST charged by the hotels located outside Delhi - Held that: - It is pointed that different provisions are applicable in case of online bookings through web travel portals and they are able to avail the credit - The respondents will examine the assertions and so called anomalies. We will be informed on the treatment accorded on sale of manufactured goods and other services which are provided by an assessee across the country.
Rate of tax of GST - works contract - case of petitioners is that the contract works for which the agreements were executed prior to 01.07.2017, GST cannot be imposed and 2% VAT alone is applicable - Held that: - since the petitioner's representations are pending, it is to appropriate for the respondents to respond to the same by giving them a reply. The appropriate person, who would be in a position to give reply, is that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall give a reply. Because all other authorities are the department of Highways and National Highways etc., who would not be in a position to specifically address the issue pointed out by the petitioner.
There will be a direction to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to consider the representations given by the petitioner/Association and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
Cancellation of the tender in which the petitioner participated - change of tax regime - introduction of GST - Held that: - Since the entire tax regime has undergone change, therefore, the State Government's decision not to act upon the tenders invited with effect from 1.7.2017 to 5.8.2017 cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, which may warrant interference of this Court.
In pursuance of the offer of the petitioner, letter of acceptance of the contract has not been communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a case of concluded contract. In the absence of concluded contract, the petitioner cannot claim right to seek grant of contract only on the basis of the offer submitted by the petitioner at one stage.
UP GST - detention of goods - petitioner was not given any opportunity to show cause or give reply to the allegation on which goods have been seized - goods detained on account of absence of Transit Declaration Form (TDF) - Held that: - Inasmuch as the petitioner had no notice or opportunity to explain his conduct with respect to the discrepancy in the Tax Invoice alleged in the seizure order, we consider it proper to set aside the orders passed u/s 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act - matter remanded for reexamination - appeal allowed by way of remand.
9911796707
