Newsletter – Vol. 2, Issue 16 – 17.04.2022

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

The date of the invoice which is shown as 03.02.2021 while that shown in the e-way bill was 02.03.2021; minor discrepancy and should be covered by the circular: Hon’ble Kerala High Court
In Greenlights Power Solutions v. State Tax Officer, Commissioner of Commercial Tax, WP(C) No. 7716 of 2021, In the instant case, the discrepancy pointed out is only on the date of invoice which is shown as 03.02.2021 while that shown in the e-way bill was 02.03.2021. All other details in the invoice tallied and had no discrepancy. Thus, the error noticed is insignificant and not of any consequence for invoking the power conferred u/s. 129 of the Act to impose tax and penalty…… The situation arising in the instant case, warranted imposition of only a minor penalty as contemplated under the Circular dated 14.09.2018. In view of the above, the imposition of tax and penalty upon the petitioner to the extent imposed in Ext.P6 is perverse and illegal, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Registration cancelled solely on the ground of non-filing of returns restored (even the outstanding is paid) as covered by CBIC and Hon’ble SC extension: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In Tahura Enterprises v. UOI, R/SCA No. 3442/2022, the cancellation of registration was on the ground of non-filing of returns by the writ-applicants and came to be passed on 10.07.2019. The writ-applicants preferred an application before the appellate authority for revocation of cancellation of registration, but such application was not entertained on the ground that the same was time barred. We take notice of the fact that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs extended the time limit for filing application for revocation of cancellation of registration and the limitation for all the orders passed on or before 12.06.2020 was to effectively commence from 31.08.2020. And thereafter it is covered by the orders of Hon’ble SC. Since the registration of certificate of the writ-applicants came to be cancelled solely on the ground of non-filing of the returns, which was on account of non-payment of tax and the writ-applicants now having paid such outstanding tax, the registration certificate of the writ-applicants should be ordered to be restored so that they are able to continue with their business. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10.07.2019 cancelling the registration certificate is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith restore the registration certificate of the writ-applicants under the provisions of the G.S.T. Act

As the mistake is the E-way bill of incorrect name is bonafide, order quashed; department can impose only minor penalty as per the circular: Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court
In M/s Create Consults v. State of M.P. and Ors., Writ Petition No. 344 of 2022, courier invoices in which, consigner details were shown as AVGOL India Pvt. Ltd. whereas the e-way bill for the same transaction which was generated by petitioner, reflected the detail of petitioner instead of AVGOL India Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble HC held that apparently, courier receipt/invoice and eway bill, pertains to same transaction but the generation of e-way bill is in incorrect name. The mistake appears to be bona fide inasmuch as the detail of vehicle, dispatch date is same. In our considered view, the case in hand appears to be a case where e-way bill was generated wrongly in the name of petitioner on account of some clerical or typographical error, therefore, in the light of order passed by the co-ordinate bench, the impugned orders dated 24/06/2019 (Annexure P/3) and 31/10/2019 (Annexure P/5) are quashed. It is further directed that respondents will be at liberty to consider the case of petitioner for imposition of a minor penalty while treating the mistake in question to be a clerical mistake as per circular dated 14/09/2018 bearing no. CBEC/20/16/03/2017-GST issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

Bail Allowed:

Anticipatory – In Dishu Jain v. UOI and Ors., Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. – 2819 of 2022 – Hon’ble Allahabad High Court 

In Ajaj Ahamad v. State of Odisha (CGST), BLAPL No. 6498 of 2021 – Seeking grant of bail – availment of fraudulent ITC – sham subsidiaries – fake bills without the actual supply of goods – Sections 132(1)(C) and 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Hon’ble Orissa High Court

The author may be reached at*

Facebook Twitter Linkedin
Scroll Up
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap