|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 13861 to 13880 of 13912 Records
-
2017 (12) TMI 341
Detention of goods - absence of Transit Declaration Form (TDF) - mis-description of goods - Refined Palm Oil - penalty - Section 129(1) of UP GST Act - Held that: - at the stage of seizure the detaining authority had not applied his mind, nor formed any opinion as to intention to evade tax. The only allegation made in the seizure order is to the effect that the TDF is absent and that the goods have been mis-described. There is no allegation whatsoever as to the intention of the petitioner to evade tax.
In absence of any allegation or evasion of tax being made against the petitioner at the stage of detention and seizure and even at the stage of issuance of notice of penalty, it is difficult to sustain the penalty.
As to absence of TDF, though it amounted to a breach of the Rules, yet, in the entirety of the facts & circumstances of this case, as admitted to the revenue, it does appear that goods were being transported from Rajasthan to Assam. Also, since the goods had reached near the exit point in the State of U.P. and there is no allegation that the goods were being or had been unloaded inside the State of U.P. - the goods were infact being transported from Rajasthan to Assam as disclosed in the Tax Invoice and other documents found accompanying the goods - breach was purely technical.
Mis-description of goods - Held that: - the goods (whatsoever their correct description be) had originated from outside the State and were being transported outside the State, using the State of U.P. as a transit State, and the goods appear to have been seized near the exit point in State of U.P. the proper officer should have, at most made an endorsement to that effect and allowed the goods to pass through the State of U.P.
The seizure order as also the penalty order are wholly unsustainable - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 202
Release of detained goods - Jurisdiction of detaining authority - mis-declaration as well as mis-classification of goods - inter-state or intra-state supply - Held that: - the specific power invoked in issuing the impugned notice is under the CGST/SGST which is applicable only to the intra-state movement of goods. Admittedly the petitioner has consigned the goods from Tamil Nadu and was transporting it to the 3rd respondent at Pattambi - The issue of misclassification and under valuation has to be gone into by the respective assessing officers and not by the detaining officer. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to permit the further detention of the goods.
The petitioners shall be permitted release of the goods on the execution of simple bond without sureties as expeditiously as possible - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1960
Seizure of goods - goods was not accompanied by 'e-way' bill which is a necessary requirement - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted that the notification which requires to accompany e-way bill also recites that in case at the time of interception the e-way bill is not present with the goods, the authorities will allow the dealer to download e-way bill and in case the said e-way bill is downloaded then no further action would be taken.
In the present case, it is found that before the seizure could be made on 3.11.2017 at 2:00 p.m. the dealer had already downloaded and produced the e-way bill before the authority at 8:40 p.m. on 2.11.2017. Since the only allegation against the petitioners is of non production of e-way bill, which the petitioners had produced before the authority, the goods and vehicle are directed to be released forthwith upon the petitioners furnishing security, other than cash and bank guarantee, to the satisfaction of the authority concerned.
Petition disposed off.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1921
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - Supari - E-way Bill was not presented at the time of seizure of the goods - HELD THAT:- It is not denied to the State that the recommendations have been made by the GST Council in the 22nd Meeting at New Delhi on 6th October, 2017 by which the requirement of filing the E-way Bill has been suspended by the State Government for the time being. Even otherwise the petitioner has stated in the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder affidavit that he did obtain the E-Way Bill and he did present it before the authority concerned within two hours but it was not accepted by the respondent-State.
In view of the fact that there is a recommendation of GST Council that till 31st of March, 2018 the demand of an E-way Bill will not be made. The demand itself and the consequential demand of cash security is not justified - respondents are directed to release the goods of the petitioner forthwith subject to deposit of security to the extent of 50% of the value of goods in the shape of other than cash or bank guarantee, which will abide by penalty proceedings - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1413
Imposition of 12% GST on sanitary napkins - code number which is applicable to a person/service provider who seeks benefit of exemption under Serial No. 3 of the N/N. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) - Held that: - This is an aspect for which the petitioner must first get in touch with a specialist on the subject and in case they are unable to get hold of the code, correspond with the respondent Council, who, we are sure would ensure that the requisite information is made available - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1032
Detention and seizure of goods - Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 - questions of facts - Held that: - in the instant case since the factual disputed issues are involved and further that the penalty proceedings are already initiated, as intimated by the counsel for the State, therefore, it would be proper in the interest of justice that the seized goods be released in favour of the petitioners on the payment of an amount of ₹ 1,11,564/- the goods and vehicle be released forthwith on payment of the amount of tax as has been indicated in the SCN dated 26.9.2017 being ₹ 1,11,564/- - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1022
Non-filing of GST Registration within the stipulated time - Held that: - The provisional ID and password allotted to the petitioner for the purposes of GST is not working - it is provided that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner for not filing the GST return within the time stipulated.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1021
Cancellation of GST Registration - Held that: - the copy of the order has not been supplied and that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given before cancelling the registration - In the absence of any order of the cancellation on record, we find it difficult to proceed in the matter.
-
2017 (11) TMI 809
Disqualification of petitioner - petitioner's bid treated as nonresponsive and ineligible on the sole ground that while submitting the bid the petitioner no.1 has not paid Goods and Services Tax to the respondent with the Bid/ Document Fee - at the time of submitting bid the petitioners made the payment of ₹ 18000/towards bid / document fees, however without GST @18% as demanded as per the tender document / notice - It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that thereafter, in absence of any information about the GSTIN of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner no.1 has made the payment of GST by depositing the amount as per reverse charge mechanism on 3.10.2017 at around 12.00 p.m within the time prescribed for the said purpose under law.
Held that: - At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such in the present case the petitioners are not considered to be tenderer at all by the respondent Corporation on non deposit of entire amount of bid document fee, which as such was required to be paid as per the terms and conditions of the tender document and “nProcure” document. It is required to be noted that as per “nProcure” document the party who submit its bid online was required to deposit / pay within the stipulated time the bid document fee/ bid processing fee of ₹ 21240/which includes GST at 18%. It is an admitted position that when the petitioners submitted its bid online and thereafter in physical format the petitioners did not pay the entire amount of bid document fee/ bid processing fee of ₹ 21240/and deposited only part of the bid document fee / bid processing fee i.e. ₹ 18000/only. At this stage, it is required to be noted that other two tenderers who submitted their bid, paid / deposited the entire document fee / bid processing fee i.e. ₹ 21,240/. Thus, in the tender consolidation details and “nProcure” tender consolidated details deposit of entire amount of document fee and EMD details was mandatory to be paid.
It is an admitted position that as the petitioners did not deposit the entire bid document fee / bid processing fee at the time of submitting the bid / bid document and therefore, no such receipt in favour of petitioner has been generated like in the case of other two bidders who in fact paid the entire bid document fee / EMD and therefore, the petitioners are not considered at all tenderer / bidder and therefore, its bid has not been considered at the technical bid stage.
The issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer.
The decision of the respondent Corporation in not treating and / or considering the petitioners as tenderer / bidder and in holding the petitioners ineligible even prior to technical bid stage, cannot be said to be perverse and / or arbitrary and suffering from vice of favoritism. The understanding on the part of the respondent Corporation with respect to applying relevant terms and conditions of the tender document and to treat and / or consider the deposit of bid document fee / bid processing fee and the EMD before relevant date as essential condition to be fulfilled and / or complied with the at the entry stage itself cannot be said to be perverse and / or arbitrary to the terms and conditions of the tender document. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such there are no specific allegation of mala fide and / or favoritism.
The petitioners was not required to deposit the amount of GST. The petitioners and others were required to deposit as such ₹ 21,240/towards bid document fee/ bid processing fee which includes GST amount at 18%. Therefore, there was no question of furnishing any details of GST registration / GSTIN, as now stated by the petitioners. At this stage, it is required to be noted even at the cost of repetition that other two bidders did deposit the entire amount of ₹ 21,240/and thereby complied with the relevant terms and conditions / essential conditions.
What is required to be considered as payment of entire amount of bid document fee / bid processing fee and the EMD at the relevant time and before the prescribed period mentioned in the tender document. As observed herein above, such a requirement was required to be complied with the entry stage itself. As observed herein above, unless and until, entire amount of bid document fee/ bid processing fee and the EMD is deposited the persons who submitted bid would not get entry at all and only after the aforesaid amount is deposited / paid and receipt is generated, the concerned party can be said to be tenderer / bidder whose bid is required to be considered at technical stage and thereafter on fulfillment of other terms and conditions, its price bid is required to be considered.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (11) TMI 731
Interpretation of statute - requirement of furnishing of Bond with bank guarantee or filing of LUT- Rule 96A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Circular No. 4/4/2017 - Held that: - Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, has produced before the Court, Notification No. 37/2017-Central Tax, dated 4th October 2017, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, whereby the grievance of the Petitioner in the present petition no longer survives - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1017
Access to registration certificate of partnership firm - case of appellant is that even though the G.S.T. ID/ password for a partnership firm has been provided to the petitioner, but on logging with the said ID/password, he is not able to access the registration certificate of his partnership firm which is migrated to G.S.T. - Held that: - respondent may seek instructions if any arrangement has been made to resolve such kind of problems.
-
2017 (10) TMI 881
Jurisdiction under GST - determination of rate of IGST on import of goods - Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - case of petitioner is that the respondent is neither a proper officer nor an adjudicating authority as defined and contemplated under the CGST Act or the IGST Act - Held that: - a Writ Court cannot make a fact finding exercise to ascertain, which would be an appropriate entry under which the goods are to be classified.
It appears that the petitioner did not dispute the classification as under entry 84329010, but submitted that the correct rate of IGST should be at 12%. The respondent has taken a decision by classifying the goods by fixing the rate of tax at 18% and in support of such conclusion has given certain reasons. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, I do not propose to venture into as what would be the appropriate classification of the goods as this exercise being a factual exercise has to be necessarily agitated before the appellate authority. - Writ petition dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 880
Vires of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 - Main grievance of the petitioner is that on the coal imported by it prior to the introduction of goods and service tax regime, the petitioner had already paid clean energy cess at the prescribed rate and on the stock which the petitioner had not cleared, no credit would be allowed on such cess and the petitioner would be asked to pay fresh cess under the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 and the rules made thereunder - Held that: - issue notice - In view of the fact that the validity of a Union legislation is questioned, let there be NOTICE to the learned Attorney General also.
-
2017 (10) TMI 831
Detention of goods - non compliance with the requirement of carrying the prescribed documents under the IGST Act - Held that: - although the power to prescribe the documents that are to accompany the transportation of goods in the course of interstate trade is conferred on the Central Government, the Central Government has, till date, not notified the documents that have to be carried by a transporter of the goods in the course of interstate movement - the detention in Ext.P5, for the sole reason that the transportation was not accompanied by the prescribed documents under the IGST Act/CGST Act/CGST Rules, cannot be legally sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 784
Issuance of Password corresponding to the new provisional ID issued to the petitioner - case of petitioner is that Since the password has not been issued to the petitioner the petitioner is unable to complete the process of migration so as provided under Section 139 of GST Act read with Rule 24(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Held that: - On inquiry made by the petitioner the petitioner has been informed on the GST Portal that the petitioner will not be allowed to deposit its tax and further to file the returns unless the late filing penalty and interest are also to be deposited. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no fault of the petitioner but on account of laches at the hands of the competent authority the petitioner company may suffer adverse financial consequences which may be arbitrary.
The concerned respondent authority is directed to immediately issue a password to the petitioner company for completing migration process on the GST Portal for upload its returns and to deposit the due tax. It is further directed that the concerned respondent authority will allow the petitioner to complete migration to GST upon the receipt of such password as such issued to the petitioner company, in accordance with law.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (10) TMI 783
Works contract - levy of VAT or GST - case of petitioner 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: - there will be a direction to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to consider the representation given by the petitioner/ association and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (10) TMI 693
Relief package for exporters - import of Gold bars - Advance Authorisation Scheme - Held that: - in view of the press release dated 6th October 2017, which prima facie makes no distinction as regards the Advance Authorisations (AA) issued prior to or after 1st July 2017, the Petitioner will not hereafter be required to pay IGST in respect of the imports of gold bars made by it Petitioner in terms of the AAs issued to it - interim relief is granted subject to the Petitioner furnishing to the Respondent authorities a letter of undertaking that the clearance of the imported goods in terms of the AA will be subject to the final result of the present petition.
-
2017 (10) TMI 602
Imposition of 12% GST on sanitary napkins - Although the Petitioner has served the GST Council dasti, there is no appearance on its behalf today - the Court is constrained to direct the Secretary of the GST Council to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
-
2017 (10) TMI 601
The Delhi High Court allowed exemptions subject to exceptions in a case represented by Mr. Amit Khemka and Mr. Rishi Sehgal for the petitioner, and Mr. Vikram Jetly for the respondents. Notice was issued to Respondent No.2 to dispose of the petitioner's representation by October 9, 2017.
-
2017 (10) TMI 255
Input tax credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - e-auction - whether lessee can claim input tax credit? - Held that: - the G.S.T. payable on the sale value of the mineral purchased in the e-auction shall be paid by the buyer directly to the lessee and the lessee would be responsible for all compliances as may be required under Act - the Monitoring Committee directed to prepare appropriate proforma and also take steps for carrying proper Tax Identification Number of the respective lessees on the invoices as may be required.
....
|
9911796707
