Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
UPVAT cannot be imposed on ENA; State lacks competence: Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
In M/s Jain Distillery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors., WTAX 378 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that the State lost its legislative competence to enact laws, to impose tax on sales of ENA, upon the enactment of the 101st Constitution Amendment. Consequently, and upon considering Section 174(1)(i) of UPGST Act, 2017, the impugned Notification dated 17.12.2019, insofar as it seeks to impose UPVAT on ENA, Rectified Spirit and SDS, is ultra vires, both on account of lack of (i) legislative competence and (ii) valid delegation.
Electronic Credit Ledger cannot be utilised for the payment of pre-deposit: Hon’ble Orissa High Court
In M/s Jyoti Construction v. Deputy Commissioner of CT & GST, Barbil Circle, Jajpur and Anr., W.P.(C) Nos. 23508, 23511, 23513, 23514 and 23521 of 2021, Hon’ble HC observed that it is not possible to accept the plea of the Petitioner that “Output Tax”, as defined under Section 2(82) of the OGST Act could be equated to the pre-deposit required to be made in terms of Section 107 (6) of the OGST Act. Resultantly, the Court was unable to find any error having been committed by the appellate authority in rejecting the Petitioner’s contention that the Electronic Credit Ledger could be debited for the purposes of making the payment of pre-deposit.
Attachment set aside because of non-application of mind: Hon’ble Kerala High Court
In M/s Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Tax and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 20945 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that in the decision in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the exercise of powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act and after elaborate consideration, laid down the manner and mode in which the powers are to be exercised. None of the stipulations specified in the aforesaid judgment are evident in the orders impugned in this writ petition. Thus, there is non-application of mind to the purport of power exercisable by the second respondent under Section 83 of the CGST Act.
Department may proceed during the pendency of the Writ Petition: Hon’ble Kerala High Court
In Nethu Varghese v. The Asst. State Tax Officer and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 2022 of 2021, the Writ Petition sought for quashing of orders of detention under Section 129(1) as well as notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. It is submitted that the petitioner had furnished bank guarantee and had obtained release of goods, but the adjudication proceedings consequent to the said orders had not been completed. It is also pointed out that due to the pendency of the Writ Petition, the second respondent (department) has not completed the proceedings for adjudication. Hon’ble HC was of the view that the pendency of the writ petition is not a bar for completing the adjudication proceedings contemplated under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
Accept TRAN-1 filed manually: Hon’ble Karnataka High Court
In M/s Adarsha Control and Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P. No. 13284, 13286, 13287, 13289, 13291 & 13292 of 2020 And WMP No. 16417, 16423, 16426, 16419 & 16421 of 2020 Hon’ble HC took note of various decisions and directed the department to take on record GST TRAN-1 filed vide Annexure-R (manually) and to consider the same. However, the respondents are at liberty to verify the genuineness of the merits of the claim of the petition, in accordance with the law.
Revision of TRAN-1 allowed: Hon’ble Karnataka High Court
In M/s Bangalore Biotech Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes, Bangalore and Ors., W.P. No. 13758/2021 (T-RES), Hon’ble HC directed the department to permit the petitioner to file revised Form GST TRAN-1 either electronically or manually. However, the respondents are liberty to verify the genuineness on the merits of the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the law.
Claim of the refund should be decided (petitioner stated claim not decided due to pending investigation): Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In Evertime Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P. No. 3793 of 2021, petitioner submitted that the claim for refund is not being processed by the department on the ground that the investigation is pending against the petitioner, Hon’ble HC held that it would be appropriate if the claim for the refund is processed by the respondents in accordance with the law.
Attachment set aside as the period of one year is expired: Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In M/s Guru Nanak Motor House v. Union of India and Ors., W.P. No. 3954 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that considering that a period of one year from the date of provisional attachment under section 83(1) of the CGST Act has expired despite which the order of provisional attachment has not been lifted, this petition is allowed as by operation of law the provisional attachment order ceases to exist.
Damages are consideration for tolerating an act or a situation arising out of the contractual obligation: Authority for Advance Ruling, Telangana
In Re:M/s Continental Engineering Corporation, No.- A.R.Com/18/2020 TSAAR Order No.13/2021, AAR held that the damages are claimed by the applicant from the contractee due to the delays in making available possession of site, drawings & other schedules by the contractee beyond the milestones fixed for completion of project. These damages are consideration for tolerating an act or a situation arising out of the contractual obligation and are taxable at 18%. The time of supply of the service of tolerance is the time when such determination takes place i.e., date of arbitration award.
The author may be reached at abhishek@gstivy.in*