Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
The application for revocation of cancellation of registration was rejected on the same day of filing the application, such rejection is violation of PNJ and arbitrary: Hon’ble Calcutta High Court
In K. Kumar Raja Project Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Ors., MAT 389 of 2022 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2022, the appellant had filed an application dated 08.02.2022 for revocation of cancellation of registration which was also rejected on the very same day of 8th February, 2022. Hon’ble HC held that prima facie, we are of the view that the transactions referred to by the respondent in the order dated 18.08.2020 prima facie shows that the appellant is carrying on business within the State of West Bengal. In any event, we are satisfied that the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation of registration is in total violation of principles of natural justice and arbitrary.
Extension of limitation by Supreme Court is applicable in refund application cases: Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court
In M/s Vyplavi Granites v. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax and Ors., Writ Petition No. 12197 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that a perusal of the order under challenge shows that as per the provisions of the statute, in order to get entitlement for refund of the period from April, 2018 to March, 2019, one should have filed an application on or before 19.05.2020. But in the present case, the petitioner herein filed such application on 13.03.2021. It is very much apparent from the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, that while computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 is liable to be excluded. In view of the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and if the said period is excluded from computation of the period of limitation, the entire claim of the petitioner herein is liable to be accepted.
The levy of Service Tax or GST on Royalty & District Mineral Fund (DMF); stayed in light of pending issue before Hon’ble SC: Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court
In M/s Mandhan Minerals Cooperation and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., W.P (T) No. 432 of 2021 and Ors., Hon’ble HC held that it is clear that the levy of GST by the respondents is on the Royalty/DMF in respect of the mining lease granted to the petitioners. The decision of the Apex Court by the 7 Judges Constitution Bench in the case of India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu that royalty is a tax is under consideration before a 9 Judges Constitution Bench of the Apex Court upon reference made in the case of Mineral Area Development Authority & Others. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh v. UOI and Ors., this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease /Royalty/DMF.
Appeal restored, which was dismissed in absence of pre-deposit u/s. 107(6): Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In M/s Hinron Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, R/SCA No. 7458 of 2022, Hon’ble HC held that we dispose of this writ application with a direction that the writ applicant shall deposit the amount of ₹ 11,08,961/- (10%) within a period of two weeks with the Office of the Commissioner (Appeals) in accordance with Section 107(6) of the Act. If this amount is deposited within the stipulated time, then the appeal shall be restored to its original file and the Commissioner (Appeals) shall proceed to hear the appeal on its own merits.
It is not clear as to why different wings of the very same department have been issuing notices and summons to the appellants without taking any of the earlier proceedings to the logical end: Hon’ble Calcutta High Court
In Ideal Unique Realtors Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. v. The UOI and Ors., FMA 297 of 2022, Hon’ble HC held that the appellants appear to have been dealt with in a most unfair manner in the sense that from the year 2018 for the very same TRAN – 1 issue the appellants have repeatedly been summoned, issued notices etc. The spot memos, which have been communicated to the appellants along with the communications dated 22nd March, 2021 is also for the very same purpose – it is not clear as to why different wings of the very same department have been issuing notices and summons to the appellants without taking any of the earlier proceedings to the logical end. The spot memos enclosed with the communications dated 22nd March, 2021 are quashed and there will be a direction to the 5th respondent, namely, Additional Assistant Director, DGGI, Kolkata, Zonal Unit to consider the reply submitted by the appellants dated 14th January, 2020 along with the earlier reply given by the appellants dated 15th June, 2018 and 24th July, 2018 – Appeal allowed.
In Sanchit Gupta v. UOI and Anr., Cri. Misc. Bail Application No. 15755 of 2021 – Seeking grant of Bail – availment of fraudulent inward ITC – Section 132 (1) (b) of C.G.S.T. Act – Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
The author may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org*