9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the judgment cannot be treated as In Rem , is total non-application of mind and misinterpretation, since the notification issued by the Government itself is struck down then the notification is not existence in the eye of law. In such circumstances the judgment is not in rem would not arise, since the respondents would not have power to impose GST. When there is no power to the respondents, then the imposition of GST is without any authority. The respondents further submitted that the refund application ought to be submitted within a period of 2 years, but in the present case the petitioners had submitted beyond the period two years. Since the issue was pending before various Courts subsequently, it has been settled by the Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of said notification was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. The High Court of Gujarat in its judgment has held as under: 133. It appears that despite having levied and collected the integrated tax under the IGST Act, 2017, on import of goods on the entire value which includes the Ocean Freight through the impugned notifications, once again the integrated tax is being levied under an erroneous misconception of law that separate tax can be levied on the services components (freight), which is otherwise impermissible under the scheme of the GST legislation made under the CA Act, 2016. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the appeal filed by Revenue, has dismissed the appeal and has held as under: 147. We are in agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the Government itself is struck down then the notification is not existence in the eye of law. In such circumstances the judgment is not in rem would not arise, since the respondents would not have power to impose GST. When there is no power to the respondents, then the imposition of GST is without any authority. 7. The respondents further submitted that the refund application ought to be submitted within a period of 2 years, but in the present case the petitioners had submitted beyond the period two years. Since the issue was pending before various Courts subsequently, it has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then the respondents cannot reject the plea of refund on the basis of limitation. Therefore, the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
