Goods and Services Tax (GST), introduced from July 1, 2017 is about twenty two months old now but has resulted in operational and implementation disruptions affecting all stakeholders. GST law, as drafted and legislated, is not free from the interpretational hassles. GST Council is however, making regular changes to fix the anomalies and hardships faced by taxpayers. 34 meetings of GST Council have been held till 25th April, 2019.
Taxpayers have already challenged various provisions of GST laws and rules framed thereunder with over 300 writs being filed in different courts. High courts and Supreme court have taken a liberal stand so far in view of the fact that law is new and is yet evolving. However, CBIC may move to Supreme court where the verdict is against the Government. In recent past, CBIC had issued directions to be officers to defend the writs. Further, we have over 350 rulings from Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) and over 60 Orders from National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) out of which two Anti-profiteering cases have gone to Delhi High Court. Even the orders from Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling have also started pouring in and we have over three dozen Appellate Orders from AAAR.
Here are few more judicial pronouncements for information and guidance of various stakeholders. It is expected that the litigation by way of writs is bound to go up as time passes by unless the Government comes out with proactive approach and solutions.
Where during pendency of assessee's petition, revenue brought on record copies of Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST dated 3-4-2018 setting up an IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism in form of a Committee, assessee was to be directed to approach concerned Nodal Officers with brief representations in relation to their grievances. It was directed that the Nodal Officer or the Redressal Committee shall appropriately deal with them, in accordance with the Circular.
- In Maneesh Singh v State of U.P. 2018 (5) TMI 169 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ; where petitioner filed a writ petition stating that in view of section 173 of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 172 and sections 192 and 193 of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 were omitted and, thus, tender notice dated 24-3-2018 issued by Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur for realising advertisement tax was bad in law and since issue required scrutiny; auction in pursuance to impugned tender notice was stayed till next date of listing.
- In Modern Advertising & Marketing v. State of U.P. 2018 (5) TMI 170 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ; where petitioner filed a writ petition stating that in view of section 173 of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 172 and sections 192 and 193 of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 were omitted and, thus, tender notice dated 31-3-2018 issued by Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur for realizing advertisement tax was alleged to be bad in law and since issue required scrutiny auction in pursuance to impugned tender notice was stayed till next date of listing.
- In Shree Raipur Cement Plant v. State of Chhattisgarh 2018 (5) TMI 1494 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT ; , the assessee was a registered dealer under the provisions of the CST Act, 1956 read with the rules of 1957 and his registration certificate under the CST Act, 1956 read with the rules of 1957 continue to be valid for the purpose of inter-State sale and purchase of high speed diesel despite the assessee having been migrated to the GST regime with effect from 1-7-2017, as the definition of goods as defined in section 2(d) of the CST Act, 1956 has been amended prior to coming into force of the CGST Act, 2017 from 1-7-2017 which includes high speed diesel. Further, under section 9(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the GST Council has not made any recommendation for bringing high speed diesel within the ambit of the CGST Act, 2017 and, therefore, the Central Government has not notified high speed diesel to be within the ambit of the CGST Act, 2017. Thus, the assessee's registration certificate under the CST Act, 1956 is still valid for the goods defined in section 2(d) of the CST Act, 1956, including high speed diesel, and the assessee is entitled for issuance of C-Form for inter-State purchase / sale of high speed diesel against the said C-Form. As such, it was held that the revenue shall be liable and was directed to issue C-Form to the assessee in respect of high speed diesel to be purchased by the assessee and used in the course of manufacture of cement and for that, it was further directed to rectify and remove the error on their official website and entertain the assessee's application submitted on-line on the official website seeking issuance of C Form to the assessee for said goods.
- In Multiplex Cinevision (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. 2018 (5) TMI 762 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ; the assessee was engaged in the business of construction and development of entertainment facilities including Multiplex theatres. Under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 a scheme was formulated on 3-9-2015, which was valid upto 31-3-2020, permitting the Multiplex owners to collect entertainment tax and to retain 100 per cent of the first year, 75 per cent in the second and third year and 50 per cent in the fourth and fifth year. On the basis of the said scheme, the District Magistrate, Meerut vide Order dated 24-11-2013 specifically permitted the assessee to retain the entertainment tax to said extent.
During the subsistence of the above scheme, the CGST and UPGST Acts had been implemented with effect from 1-7-2017 and the above Act had been repealed vide section 174 of the U.P. GST Act with the saving clause that it will not effect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act provided the tax exemption granted under the repealed Act by any notification had not been rescinded or revoked by a fresh notification on or after the enforcement of the GST regime.
The assessee filed writ petition stating that as there was no notification repealing the benefit conferred upon him under the scheme of the Act, he was entitled to collect entertainment tax as in the past upto 24-11-2018 and to retain the percentage of it in accordance with the scheme.
The court admitted the petition and directed the parties to counter affidavit and rejoinders. It was also directed to respondent to answer whether the scheme granting benefit to petitioner is still continuing or stands revoked automatically or by way of any notification.
(Some more cases to follow)
9911796707
