Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
The award of interest in refund and amount must be as per the statutory provisions of law and whenever a specific provision has been made under the statute such provision has to govern the field: Hon’ble Supreme Court
In UOI v. Wollowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., Civil Appeal No(s). 2995 –2996 of 2022, Hon’ble SC dealt with the rate of interest @6% or @9% (as ordered by Hon’ble HC) to be granted u/s. 56 of the C/SGST Act. Hon’ble SC held that in Sandvik Asia Ltd. the observations made by this Court in Paragraph 48 of the decision are quite clear that “the award of interest in refund and amount must be as per the statutory provisions of law and whenever a specific provision has been made under the statute such provision has to govern the field.” The subsequent decision of the bench of three Judges in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals noticed that the grant of interest at the rate of 9 per cent was in the facts of the case in Sandvik Asia Ltd. Since the delay in the instant case was in the region of 94 to 290 days and not so inordinate as was the case in Sandvik Asia Ltd., the matter has to be seen purely in the light of the concerned statutory provisions. In terms of the principal part of Section 56 of the CGST Act, the interest would be awarded at the rate of 6 percent. The award of interest at 9 percent would be attracted only if the matter was covered by the proviso to the said Section 56. The High Court was in error in awarding interest at the rate exceeding 6 per cent in the instant matters.
In the absence of any material particulars and the details, it is difficult for any individual to respond to such a vague show cause notice: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In Shah Industries v. State of Gujarat and Ors., R/SCA No. 5935 of 2022, Hon’ble HC held that the show cause notice is bereft on any material particulars or information. In the absence of any material particulars and the details, it is difficult for any individual to respond to such a vague show cause notice. Probably what the Authority is trying to convey is that the registration had been merely on paper and no actual business activity is found on the place of business, as the writ applicant – a registered person was not found at the place of business of the writ applicant. If such are the allegations, it is expected of the Authority to furnish some details in this regard. The impugned show cause notice has to be quashed and set aside.
‘Summary of Show Cause Notice’ was issued and Adjudication Order was passed, No ‘SCN’ was issued hence violation of PNJ: Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court
In M/s Godavari Commodities Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., W.P.(T) No. 3908 of 2020 with W.P.(T) No. 3909 of 2020, Hon’ble HC held that the first issue to be adjudicated in the instant writ application is as to whether the very initiation of the adjudication proceeding without issuance of show cause notice is void ab initio and any consequential adjudication order passed thereto is nonest in the eye of law. The said issue has already been settled by a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s NKAS Services Private Limited v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2021-VIL-732-Jhr. Impugned Orders Set Aside.
The delay in filing the certified copy is condoned in light of Hon’ble SC extension of limitation: Hon’ble Calcutta High Court
In Sanjoy Singh v. The State of W.B. and Ors., WPA 681 of 2022, Hon’ble HC held that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the relevant period was excluded in computing limitation period for filing an appeal. The petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the same as the relevant period is covered by the time period referred to in the order passed by the Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside and the delay in filing the certified copy condoned. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned order, condone the delay in filing the certified copy and direct the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner under the WBGST Act afresh on merits.
In such a notice of intimation (DRC-01A), the proper officer shall not threaten the dealer that if he would fail to comply with the intimation the department shall proceed to recover the tax: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In Agrometal Vendibles Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, R/SCA No. 6919 of 2022, Hon’ble HC held that the department needs to correct itself not only as regards their understanding of the entire procedure, but even the contents of the Forms are incorrect. The intention of the proper officer was to give an intimation in accordance with sub-section (5) of Section 74 and therefore, the intimation should have been in the Form GST DRC – 01A and not Form GST DRC – 01. There is a vast difference between Rule 142(1)(a) and Rule 142 (1A) of the Rules. Therefore, from now onwards, if the department deems fit to issue any intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under sub-section (5) of Section 74 in accordance with the Rule 142(1A) of the Rules, it shall issue notice in the Form GST DRC – 01A. In such a notice of intimation, the proper officer shall not threaten the dealer that if he would fail to comply with the intimation, the department shall proceed to recover the tax. The proper officer should inform the dealer that if he would pay the tax, well and good, otherwise the department shall proceed to issue a show cause notice under sub-section (1) of Section 74 in accordance with Rule 142(1)(a) of the Rules, 2017 in Form GST DRC – 01 and carry out regular assessment proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned intimation of tax in the Form GST DRC – 01 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Bail Allowed:
In Pulkit v. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 21/2022 – unauthorised and fraudulent claim of input tax credit – cheating and fraud – offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC: Hon’ble Delhi HC
In Asha and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr., CRM-M-43836-2021 (O&M) – availment of inadmissible input tax credit – fake invoices – Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court
The author may be reached at abhishek@gstivy.in*