Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
A single transaction may give rise to both criminal (S. 132) and civil consequences (S. 74): Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
In M/s Aamir and Sons v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Ors., WTAX No. 910 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that there is no difficulty in recognizing the principle that the single transaction may give rise to both criminal and civil consequences. In the instant case, the same appears to have been caused. There is no principle in law as may warrant any interference in the present petition to either grant injunction against the pending proceedings under S. 74 of the Central Act or to quash the same, merely because the criminal proceedings is pending against the petitioner arising from the same transaction under (S. 132(1)(c) of the Central Act).
Order set aside as no adjudication notice appears to have been issued, set aside order will be treated as a SCN: Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
In M/s Global Corporation v. State of U.P. and Ors., WTAX No. 901 of 2021, DRC-01 (summary of SCN) was issued on 18.01.2021 and thereafter ex-parte order (DRC-07) was passed on 18.02.2021. Hon’ble HC held that though the aforesaid order is appealable, we do find, a patent error has crept in the impugned order inasmuch as no adjudication notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner before passing the order dated 18.02.2021. That being an undisputed fact, no useful purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy, at this stage. Accordingly, the order dated 18.02.2021 is set aside. It is provided that the petitioner may treat the order dated 18.02.2021 as the final notice issued to it under S. 74(1) of the Act and submit its reply within four weeks from today.
Reflect the petitioner’s declaration of input tax credit made in TRAN-2: Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court
In Bubugoa Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Jaipur and Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 2938/2021, the petitioner has filed declaration in TRAN-2 for the month of July, August and September. However, ITC was not credited for July only. Hon’ble HC held that this petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to reflect the petitioner’s declaration of input tax credit for the month of July, 2017 of ₹ 25,39,371/-in the ledger account of the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall produce necessary documents to establish the availability of such input tax credit for the relevant period before the Assistant Commissioner-Respondent No. 2. It would be open for him to verify such a claim of the petitioner.
The vires of section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act is under challenge: before Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In M/s Unifab Engineering Project Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner, CGST and Ors., Writ Petition (L) No. 23044 of 2021 – issue notice to the respondents, returnable on January 11, 2022. Since the vires of section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act is under challenge, the petitioners are directed to put the Attorney General for the Union of India on notice.
Acting without jurisdiction is one thing and invoking a wrong provision while acting within the jurisdiction is another thing: Hon’ble Telangana High Court
In M/s Ramanbhai Chotabhai Patel and Co. v. Assistant Commissioner, Nizamabad and Ors., W.P. No. 28183 of 2021, the issue is regarding non-filling of return – petitioner contested that the authority is beyond jurisdiction because they invoked S. 73 instead of S. 62. Hon’ble HC held that it is at best a case of invoking a wrong legal provision instead of another, but certainly, that will not make it a case of no jurisdiction, or lack of jurisdiction. Acting without jurisdiction is one thing and invoking a wrong provision while acting within the jurisdiction is another thing.
SCN set aside because no date to reply or appointed date and time for personal hearing mentioned: Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
In M/s Kashish Infra Energy Power, Azadpur v. State of U.P. and Ors., WTAX No. 367 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that the show cause notice for rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation of registration of the petitioner, neither is the period of days specified to furnish its reply to the notice nor is the appointed date and time for personal hearing mentioned in that notice and this fact has not been rebutted in the counter affidavit. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner/applicant. In view of the aforesaid, I find that the mandatory requirement of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act has not been complied with. As such the show cause notice dated 2.1.2021 is no show-cause notice in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the subsequent order dated 30.01.2021, rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation, of the authority is questionable. Given the limited prayer made in the writ petition, the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the appellate authority is set aside and the case is remitted to him to take a fresh decision on the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with the law.
The author may be reached at abhishek@gstivy.in*