Newsletter – Vol. 1, Issue 15 – 31.10.2021

Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.

Set aside Hon’ble Delhi HC order granting relief to Bharti Airtel by quashing the restriction on rectification of GST returns and allowing rectification of Form GSTR­-3B for the period ­ July to September 2017: Hon’ble Supreme Court
In UOI v Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Ors., S.L.P. (C) No. 8654 OF 2020, Hon’ble SC held – the challenge to the impugned Circular No. 26/26/2017­GST dated 29.12.2017, is unsustainable as they are consistent with the provisions of the 2017 Acts and the Rules framed thereunder; the respondent (Airtel) cannot be permitted to unilaterally carry out rectification of its returns submitted electronically in Form GSTR-3B, which inevitably would affect the obligations and liabilities of other stakeholders, because of the cascading effect in their electronic records; GSTN system is merely a facilitator for the purpose of tax reporting and assessee cannot shed their responsibilities citing system failures or inefficiencies while terming the plea about non-operability of Form GSTR-2A.

Proceeding against the E-way Bill validity cannot be initiated if the conveyance has reached the destination well within the time when the delivery happens after the expiry of the E-way Bill – Proceeding may only be initiated during the transit: Hon’ble Karnataka High Court
In State of Karnataka v. M/s Hemanth Motors, Writ Appeal No. 381 of 2021 (T-RES) the conveyance reached the destination well within the prescribed validity period under the E-way Bill Rules. The appellant authorities contented that the consignment was being delivered after the expiry of the E-way Bill. Hon’ble HC held that the materials on record clearly indicates that the action by the authorities was taken at the destination and not during transit and therefore, an inference has to draw that the conveyance had reached the destination well within the subsistence of the valid period stipulated under the E-way bill. Department Appeal dismissed.

No requirement of file reply to DRC-01 when the detailed reply was already filed, thus department cannot take stand that the petitioner has not filed reply: Hon’ble Madras High
In M/s J.K. Engineering and Electro Platers v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)-II, Virudhnunagar, W.P.(MD)No.15924 of 2021, the petitioner’s case is that before the issuance of DRC-01 (summary notice), the petitioner has filed detailed reply twice for two SCNs, still department in the impugned order stated that on receipt of the DRC-01 notice, the taxable person has not filed any reply. Therefore, as per the documents available before the Assessment Officer, orders of assessment have been passed. Hon’ble HC held that the statement made by the assessment officer in the impugned order as if the petitioner has not replied to DRC-01 notice is a total non-application of mind, as the very detailed reply having been received by the respondent. Matter remanded for reconsideration.

All registered persons/taxpayers to submit/re-revise their Form GST TRAN-1/TRAN-2: Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
In M/s Krishna Automobiles v. UOI and Ors., Writ Tax No. – 595 of 2019; In M/s Silver Traders v. UOI and Ors., Writ Tax No. – 922 of 2019 and In M/s Subash Traders v. UOI and Ors., Writ Tax No. – 374 of 2019, Hon’ble HC held that identical issue has been decided in the case of M/s Ratex Pheon Friction Technologies Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that there is no hesitation in observing that a reasonable opportunity ought to have been granted to all “registered persons”/taxpayers to submit/revise/re-revise electronically their Form GST TRAN-1/TRAN-2.

Feb 2018 – March 2018, No requirement of State E-way Bill: Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
In M/s Atul Iron Traders v. State of U.P. and Ors., Writ Tax No. – 1334 of 2019, S. 129 proceeding initiated because of the absence of E-way Bill prescribed under UPGST Rules, 2017, Hon’ble HC held that the matter is covered by the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble DB in M/s Lovely Traders v. State of U.P. and Ors., Writ Tax No. 356 of 2018, where it was held that for the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, the condition of E-way bill has been held to be not applicable.

Seized goods along with the books of account released upon furnishing a bank guarantee: Hon’ble Delhi High Court
In M/s Shree Anjaney Traders LLP v. The Principal Commissioner and Ors., W.P.(C) 7909/2021, the petitioner sought direction to release the seized goods (areca nuts) along with the books of account. Hon’ble HC held that with the consent of the parties, the Respondents are directed to release the entire seized quantity of 48.36 lakhs kgs. of Areca Nuts, subject to the Petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee without prejudice to its rights for 31.24 lakhs kgs. (being 48.36 lakhs kgs. – 17.12 lakhs kgs.) @ ₹ 274/- per kg.

Order set aside against the person whose identity was misused to commit a crime under GST: Hon’ble Madras High Court
In M/s Manisha Arunraj v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (GST), W.P .No. 22533 of 2021, the case of the petitioner is that someone has misused the Aadhaar and PAN Card of the petitioner and allegedly committed an offence where the penalty is levied u/s 122(1)(ii) and thus the impugned order is against the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a criminal complaint about misusing his identity. Hon’ble HC held that owing to the nature of the stand taken by the writ petitioner and owing to this Court noticing that a criminal complaint has been lodged by the writ petitioner and investigation is under-way, it would only be appropriate to set aside the impugned order without expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter, leaving it open to respondents to proceed afresh either against writ petitioner or any other entity or person depending on the outcome of the investigation that is under-way qua alleged misuse of writ petitioner’s Aadhar and PAN cards to obtain a fake registration.

The author may be reached at*

Facebook Twitter Linkedin
Scroll Up
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap