|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 13886 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1217
Violation of principles of natural justice - materials placed on record by the petitioner were not duly considered - wrongful availment of ITC - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax dues towards SGST and CGST were discharged by the petitioner. It also appears that 100% penalty was imposed under Section 74 without recording any reasons for invoking Section 74. In these circumstances, the matter requires re-consideration by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order dated 28.06.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the cess demand under the impugned order with in two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a detailed reply to the show cause notice during the aforesaid period.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1216
Jurisdiction - proper officer or not - whether the Joint Commissioner can be the appellate authority? - HELD THAT:- The issue whether the Joint Commissioner can be the appellate authority, is a question, which is pending consideration before this Court in a Writ Petition, which is fixed for 19.06.2024. However, in the present case, the summary order dated 13.05.2024, has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who is the proper officer, and against this order, an alternate remedy of filing an appeal is available. As per the GST Act, before the Appellate Authority, under sub-section (6) of section 107 of the GST Act, the appellant has to deposit 25% of the amount before the Appellate Authority.
Under section 107 (6) of the GST Act, the order dated 17.05.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge, is being modified. The appellant will deposit 25% of the amount demanded from him by the proper officer vide order dated 13.05.2024, and thereafter, after depositing the said amount, the vehicle and the goods can be released.
The appeal is disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1215
Breach of principles of natural justice - cancellation of petitioner's GST registration without proper opportunity to contest the tax demand - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal pertains to a comparison of the taxable supplies reported in the GSTR-3B returns of the petitioner and Form 26AS as well as the annual return. The impugned order records that the tax proposal is confirmed as the petitioner did not lodge objections. By taking into account the fact that the GST registration was cancelled and also the fact that the petitioner was not heard before the order was issued, it is just and appropriate to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order dated 30.10.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1214
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits - mismatch between GSTR-3B and the auto-populated GSTR-2A - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is clear that the confirmed tax proposal pertains to mismatch between the GSTR-3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR-2A. Such tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice. Therefore, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order dated 07.07.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to with in two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the aforesaid period, the petitioner is permitted to send a detailed reply to the show cause notice by enclosing all the relevant documents - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1213
Rate of tax - work allotted by Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP) as a part of Jal Jeevan Mission which is a mission of Government of India allotted, performed & invoiced before and after 01.01.2022 - work allotted by Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP) as a part of Jal Jeevan Mission which is a mission of Government of India which is performed & invoiced after 01.01.2022 but which is allotted before 01.01.2022 - service receiver within the meaning of Sec.2(93) of CGST/MGST Act in respect of amounts received as grants by MJP which are paid to the applicant on services provided before and after 01.01.2022 - appointment of MJP as an agency to implement water Supply schemes - legation of sovereign function enumerated in Sch. XI & XII with in the frame work of Constitution of India so as to hold that MJP has performed the function entrusted under Article 248G & 243W of the Constitution of India or not.
What is the classification of the services supplied to Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP) as a part of Jal Jeevan Mission which is a mission of Government of India allotted, and its HSN/SAC Code and applicable entry in Notification No. 11/ 2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017? - HELD THAT:- The services supplied by the applicant are in nature of “Technical Consultancy for Project Development and Management support services, and hence classifiable under SAC code -998399- Other professional, technical and business services n.e.c., under the head Business and Production Services covered at Sr No 21 (ii) in the Notification No 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate)- dated 28th June 2017 and are taxable at rate of 18% (9% CGST & SGST each), wherever exemption is not applicable. Wherever exemption is not applicable.
Whether Services provided to MJP for the Constitutional function of State & Central Governments, for which these Governments are liable to pay the consideration of contract, and as payment is made through PFMS, supplies are in fact made to the Central & State Government? - HELD THAT:- The argument of the applicant that services provided to MJP for the Constitutional function of State & Central Governments, for which these Governments are liable to pay the consideration of contract, and as payment is made through PFMS, supplies are in fact made to the Central & State Government. Hence, even after deletion of the word “Government Authorities “with effect from 01-01-2022, from the notification entry number 3, the services provided by the applicant shall be eligible for benefit of exemption services provided by it to MJP, is not based on evidence, far-fetched and based on conjectures and surmises and very specious argument and hence rejected.
Supply of services where Time of supply is on or before 31-12-2021 - HELD THAT:- Supply of services where Time of supply is on or before 31-12-2021. After Considering all the aforesaid facts, provisions of Law, issues and decision therein, there are no hesitation in holding the “Technical Consultancy for Project Development and Management support services”, provided by the applicant to the MJP for its Water supply schemes where time of supply is on or before 31-12-2021, are covered by the exemption entry at Sr No. 3 of the exemption notification No 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June 2017.
Supply of services where Time of supply is on or after 01-01-2022 - HELD THAT:- There are no hesitation in holding the “Technical Consultancy for Project Development and Management support services”, provided by the applicant to the MJP for its Water Supply schemes where time of supply is on or after 01-01-2022, are not covered by the entry at Sr No. 3 of the Notification No 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June 2017. As the words “or a Government Authority or a Government Entity’, are omitted from the aforesaid Entry at Sr. No. 3.
Whether appointment of MJP as an agency to implement water supply schemes amounts to delegation of sovereign function enumerated in Sch. XI & XII within the framework of Constitution of India so as to hold that MJP has performed the function entrusted under Article 243G & 243W of the Constitution of India? - HELD THAT:- Not answered, being out of purview of provisions of section 97 (2) of the GST ACT, 2017.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1172
Profiteering - Constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133 and 134 of the Central Good and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - legality of the notices proposing imposition or orders imposing penalty issued by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) under Section 122 of the Act, 2017 read with Rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules, 2017 - it was held by High Court that 'The constitutional validity of Section 171 of Act, 2017 as well as Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133 and 134 of the Rules, 2017 is upheld. This Court clarifies that it is possible that there may be cases of arbitrary exercise of power under the anti-profiteering mechanism by enlarging the scope of the proceedings beyond the jurisdiction or on account of not considering the genuine basis of variations in other factors such as cost escalations on account of which the reduction stands offset, skewed input credit situations etc.'
HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1171
Profiteering - Constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133 and 134 of the Central Good and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - legality of the notices proposing imposition or orders imposing penalty issued by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) under Section 122 of the Act, 2017 read with Rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules, 2017 - it was held by High Court that 'The constitutional validity of Section 171 of Act, 2017 as well as Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133 and 134 of the Rules, 2017 is upheld. This Court clarifies that it is possible that there may be cases of arbitrary exercise of power under the anti-profiteering mechanism by enlarging the scope of the proceedings beyond the jurisdiction or on account of not considering the genuine basis of variations in other factors such as cost escalations on account of which the reduction stands offset, skewed input credit situations etc.'
HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1170
Violation of principles of natural justice - rejection of impugned order without assigning any reason - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled that not only the judicial order, but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recording in it.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT & LEASING, KOTA VERSUS M/S SHUKLA & BROTHERS [2010 (4) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT], TRAVANCORE RAYONS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1969 (10) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT] have observed that the administrative authority and the tribunal are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof would render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Once the reason has not been assigned by the competent authority for levying the penalty then on this ground alone, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the impugned order passed by the appellate court dated 31.3.2023 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same is hereby quashed - Petiiton allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1169
Seeking for a direction to the Respondent to process the refund application and sanction the refund along with interest - time limitation - Zero Rate Supplies - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted that initially, the petitioner has made application well within time, i.e. on 22.02.2018, claiming refund of the tax under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 followed a reminder letter dated 29.03.2019, but the respondent has not processed the same, but after a lapse of more than one year, they issued a Deficiency Memo on 12.04.2019 calling upon the petitioner to rectify certain deficiencies mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, they had not received the said Deficiency Memo and they came to know only when they received a letter dated 26.5.2023 from the respondent.
Therefore, since the petitioner has made the application claiming refund of the tax within the time, which was not processed by the respondent more than a year, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to process the application without insisting limitation aspect and pass orders therein.
The respondent is directed to process the refund application dated 22.02.2018 filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
This writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1168
Dismissal of appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation - difference between the GSTR-1 and GSTR-9C - HELD THAT:- It is admitted fact that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the notification dated 02.11.2023. On close scrutiny of the said notification, it is clear that if taxable person could not file appeal against the order passed by the Proper Officer on or before 31.03.2023 under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act and if the appeal is preferred on or before 31.01.2024, the same will be considered on merit without taking recourse to the limitation.
In the case in hand, the impugned order has been passed on 20.07.2023, much after the date mentioned in the aforesaid notification, i.e., 31.03.2023. Therefore, the said notification is of no aid to the petitioner.
In the case of M/s Yadav Steels [2024 (2) TMI 1069 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], it has been specifically held that delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period of limitation in the Act.
This Court does not find any merit in these writ petition - Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1167
Constitutional Validity of Rule 86A of the CGST/SGST Rules, 2017 - violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India - requirement of reasonable cause before action is taken under the Rule by an authorized officer - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, since no pre-decisional hearing was provided/granted by the respondents before passing the impugned order, coupled with the fact that the impugned order invoking Section 86A of the CGST Rules by blocking of the Electronic credit ledger of the petitioner does not contain independent or cogent reasons to believe except by placing reliance upon the reports of Enforcement authority which is impermissible in law, since the same is on borrowed satisfaction as held by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
Impugned order dated 23.01.2020 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed - the concerned respondents are directed to unblock the Electronic credit ledger of the petitioner immediately upon the receipt of copy of this order , so as to enable the petitioner to file returns forthwith - petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1166
Constitutional Validity of N/N. 09/2023 dated 31-03-2023 - violation of provision of section 168A of the CGST Act - extension of time limit in an arbitrary manner - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - whether the N/N. 9/2023 issued by the Government of India on 31.03.2023 at Annexure-A can be said to be without any basis or without application of mind?
HELD THAT:- The explanation to Section 168A indicates as regards the time limit which has been fixed that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the Government may, on the recommendation of Council by notification, extend the time limit specified in or prescribed or notified under the Act. The explanation to the said Section indicates that the expression force majeure would include case of war, epidemic, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake, or any other calamity caused by nature otherwise affecting the implementation of any of the provision of the Act -
A perusal of the discussion made in the GST Council in the 49th meeting held on 18.02.2023 which has been extracted hereinabove indicates that the Law Committee had considered the representation of various officers, the delay in the scrutiny and audit because of Covid-19 pandemic, the workload having been increased and that it not being capable that the proceedings be closed in terms of Subsection (10) of Section 173 by 30.09.2023, therefore, recommended an extension of a period of three months.
The extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts and Tribunals is what was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision and not matters pertaining to assessment, reassessment, show cause notice or the like issued by tax Authorities. Thus, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in suo motu proceedings [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER] would also not be applicable to the present facts and circumstances.
The notification No.9/2023 dated 31.03.2023 at Annexure-A cannot be found fault with on the basis of the submission made by the Council for the petitioner.
There are no grounds that have been made out in the present petition, so the petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1165
Decision of appeal ex-parte - Impugned order passed ex-parte by the appellate authority on the ground that on the date fixed, the counsel of the appellant could not appear before the appellate authority and neither did anyone appear on behalf of the State and the appeal was decided on merits - whether in absence of counsel of the appellant, the appellate authority can proceed to consider and decide the appeal 'ex-parte' in absence of the appellant? - HELD THAT:- The specific statutory mandate is that after hearing the appellant, the Appellate Authority is to make further enquiry, if found necessary and pass such orders as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annuling the decision or order appealed against. Such affirmation, modification or annulment shall not be an empty formality nor can it be mechanical, without the consideration of the grounds of appeal.
It is observed so, specifically when the Appellate Authority is empowered to refuse the prayer for adjournment made by an appellate, if on three prior occasions, such adjournment has been allowed, in which case also the Appellate Authority cannot absolve itself from the obligation to conduct such further enquiry as is mandated under sub-section (11) of Section 107. Sub-section (12), it has to be further emphasized, also requires the order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal to be in writing and specifically stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. When an appeal is dismissed for reason only for absence of the appellant or lack of effective prosecution, then the Tribunal should be found to have abdicated its powers and not followed the statutory mandate.
Even otherwise, deciding a case ex-parte on merits without giving reasonable opportunity to the parties is blatant violation of rule of "Audi alterum partem". In absence of the appellant, the Commercial Tax Tribunal had the authority to dismiss the appeal in default as provided in the Order XLI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rather than hearing it ex-parte and deciding it on merits.
Accordingly, adequate reasons are given for the defendant for non appearance and judgement is rendered ex-parte, but recall of order, exercise of rectification has been provided under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
The impugned order dated 18.12.2023, whereby the appellate authority has proceeded to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner in his absence, is held to be illegal and arbitrary and accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering the fact that much time due to pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, has elapsed, the appellate authority is directed to expedite the appeal and decide the same within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.
Revision allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1164
Disposal of the petition - it is submitted that this petition may not be kept pending but with appropriate protection available under Section 112 (8) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax, 2017, this petition may be disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal within stipulated period from the date the Tribunal is constituted - HELD THAT:- This petition, at this stage, is disposed off with a direction that in case petitioner makes payment as per provisions contained in Sub-section (8) of Section 112 of the Act, further proceedings shall not be drawn for recovery of the balance amount, provided that the petitioner avails statutory remedy of appeal within a period of three months from the date of the constitution of the Tribunal.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1163
Imposition of a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee while granting bail - Seeking modification of the order under Section 439(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. - misappropriation of funds of the organization and also thieved certain documents - whether the Court would have imposed a condition of furnishing of bank guarantee of whatever amount it is, while granting bail? - HELD THAT:- The Apex Court answering an identical circumstance has held that asking for a bank guarantee or a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee, while granting bail, is illegal. The Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India and another [2023 (1) TMI 1168 - SC ORDER] has held 'the condition directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 70 Lakhs is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside.'
The Apex Court has held it to be illegal in the afore-quoted judgment. The said finding would become applicable to the facts of the case at hand and the condition of furnishing of bank guarantee is on the face of it illegal. This Court is coming across plethora of cases where the concerned Courts, while granting bail are imposing a condition that the accused should furnish a bank guarantee of any quantum. This is on the face of it illegal. Such orders being passed have generated lot of litigation.
It is deemed appropriate to observe that the concerned Court shall not insist on furnishing of bank guarantee for release of the accused on grant of bail. Except this, the concerned Court would be free to impose any other legally tenable conditions - the criminal petition is allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1162
Amnesty scheme - Failure to file annual returns for the period from financial year 2018 - 2019 till 01.04.2023 but filed the same on or before 31.08.2023 - justification in continuing with the notices for non payment of late fee for belated GSTR – 9C filed by tax payees before 01.04.2023 or not - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in Anishia Chandrakanth v. the Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise [2024 (4) TMI 993 - KERALA HIGH COURT], wherein it has been held that in view of Exts.P4 and P5 notifications, there appears to be no justification in continuing with the notices for non payment of late fee for belated GSTR – 9C filed by tax payees before 01.04.2023, the date on which one time amnesty commences.
Ext.P3 is set aside to the extent it sought to collect late fee for delay in filing GSTR – 9C. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to claim refund of the late fee which has already been paid by him over and above Rs. 10,000/-.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1161
Constitutional validity of Rule 117 (4) (b) (iii) of the CGST Rules - ultra-vires of Section 140 (3) of the CGST Act - violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - seeking declarartion that Rule 117 (4) (b) (iii) of the CGST Rules to be directory in nature - HELD THAT:- It appears that this Court has already concluded this issue in the aforesaid decision of Siddharth Enterprise [2019 (9) TMI 319 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] with regard to the right of the petitioner to avail the transitional credit which is even otherwise legally available and due to the technical glitch or inadvertent mistake on the part of the petitioner, the respondent authorities were supposed to permit the petitioner to rectify TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by making necessary changes in the software if the software is designed not permitting the petitioner to upload the correct TRAN-1 to rectify the mistake in the first TRAN-1 which was uploaded on 12.12.2017.
The respondent authorities are therefore directed to permit the petitioner to file the rectified TRAN-1 with correct details in correct columns so as to avail the transitional credit by the petitioner along with TRAN-2 within a period of eight weeks from today.
The impugned show-cause-notice is hereby quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1119
Initiation of proceedings under Section 74 by the State Authority - jusriction of State Authority to initiate proccedings when proceedings have already been initiated by the Central Authority - interpretation of term initiation of any proceedings - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (2) of Section 6 indicates that, where a proper officer under the CGST Act has issued an order under the provisions of the said Act, he shall also issue an order under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act as the case may be under the intimation to the jurisdictional officer of the State Tax or the Union Territory Tax Authority as the case may be. The Section further provides that where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject matter.
The term 'initiation of any proceedings' is no doubt a reference to the issuance of a notice under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts and the initiation of an enquiry or the issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST/SGST Acts cannot be deemed to be initiation of proceedings for the purpose of Section 6 (2) (b) of the CGST/SGST Acts.
The judgment of the Patna High Court in Baibhaw Construction on which considerable reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not appear to have considered the question as to whether the term 'initiation of proceedings' in Section 6 (2) (b) of the CGST/SGST Acts would include any notice issued for any enquiry or any summons issued for the purposes of completing such enquiry either by the Central Authority or by the State Authority. Therefore the judgment of the Patna High Court in Baibhaw Construction does not come to the aid of the petitioners.
There are no merit in these writ petitions - petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1118
Seeking to rectify GSTR-1, for the months of October, 2022 and November, 2022 in respect of five export invoices - HELD THAT:- Having taken note of the fact that there is no objection as regards the claim made by the petitioner that the Form GSTR-1 was filed by reasons of a genuine mistake and such mistake had come to light for the first time when the order of part refund was issued on 6th July, 2023, i.e. much prior to the last date for correcting the return filed in Form GSTR-1 in terms of proviso to Section 37(3) of the GST Act, however, since, the petitioner’s refund application was partly allowed the petitioner had been prevented from rectifying the error as there is no scope available to rectify such error on the portal. It, however, appears to be a case of genuine mistake, having regard to the stand taken both by the State respondents as also by the customs authorities.
The Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Abdul Mannan Khan [2023 (5) TMI 287 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] had been pleased to observed that 'assesses should not be prejudiced from availing credit that they are otherwise legitimately entitled to. The error committed by the petitioner is an inadvertent human error and the petitioner should be in a position to rectify the same, particularly in the absence of an effective, enabling mechanism under statute.'
By following the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Abdul Mannan Khan, it is directed that the petitioner to resubmit corrected GSTR-1 Form manually with a further direction upon the respondent no. 3, to receive the same provided the same is submitted within three weeks from the date. The respondent no. 3 is directed to receive the same manually and would facilitate uploading of the details in the web portal.
The aforesaid direction is being issued by proceeding on the premise that the assessee should not be prejudiced from availing the benefit which it is otherwise legitimately entitled to, by taking note of the stand of the State respondents and the customs authorities.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1117
Levy of GST on Duty Free Shops located at international airports - Entitlement to Input Tax Credit (ITC) and refund of GST paid - revenue neutrality - HELD THAT:- It would be a futile exercise to consider the larger issue of levy of GST on the services provided to the petitioners by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in view of the same being revenue neutral exercise, as the petitioners are entitled to claim/apporpirate/ adjust the un-utilised input tax credit in view of the zero rated supply of sale of goods at the Duty Free Shops by the petitioners on the Arrival and Departure Terminal of the International Airport.
It is directed that the petitioners will reimburse sum of Rs. 6,11,084/- to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 with in a period of four weeks from the date of this order along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of deposit made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 till such time, the entire reimbursement is done to them - The petitioners shall file necessary application in accordance with law for claiming the ITC and/or refund of the amount reimbursed to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and other amounts refundable and the same shall be duly considered by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.
Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
