Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
Rule 25 requires inspection to be done in the presence of the person whose property is being inspected, it was not done as the petitioner had no notice of the inspection: Hon’ble Delhi High Court
In Micro Focus Software Solution India Pvt. Ltd. V. UOI and Anr., W.P.(C) 8451/2021, CM Nos. 26176/2021 & 28634/2021, Hon’ble HC held the concerned officer had with him the reply but there is no reference to the said reply or the reasons set out therein. It is not in dispute that although Rule 25 requires inspection to be done in the presence of the person whose property is being inspected, it was not done as the petitioner had no notice of the inspection. Besides the aforesaid, we may also note that the perusal of the order dated 09.12.2020 clearly discloses that there is no tax outstanding qua the petitioner. It is quite obvious that the petitioner wishes to continue maintaining its registration, if only for the purposes disclosed in its reply dated 23.11.2020. We may also add, having gone through the document dated 09.03.2022 issued by respondent no.2, (whereby the petitioner has been put to notice as to the grounds on which its refund application is liable to be rejected), it discloses that it is founded on the fact that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and that too with retrospective effect i.e., w.e.f. 01.07.2019. Impugned order set aside, registration revived.
Bonafide mistake in selection of the ODC vehicle type while generating E-way Bill, S. 129 proceedings quashed: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. UOI, R/SCA No. 7702 of 2022, Hon’ble HC held that the short point for our consideration is whether, in fact, it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the writ applicant, or whether it was a mischievous act with a view to derive some illegal benefit. We take notice of the fact that the goods were in transit with all the necessary documents including the E-way bill generated from the GST portal. The goods were moved through a truck whose registration number was also correct. The LR was also filled in the E-way bill. We are of the view that the goods of the writ applicant fall within Clause 5 of the CBEC/20/16/03/2017-GST. The manner in which the writ applicant has proceeded so far and also having regard to the fact that very promptly he brought to the notice of the authority concerned and admitted its mistake, we would like to give the writ applicant some benefit of doubt.
The denial to release refund/ reimbursement on the ground that only part amount has been paid by the writ-applicants through the electronic cash ledger is not legally tenable: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In Bhagwati Construction v. UOI, R/SCA No. 15114 of 2021, Hon’ble HC it is unfortunate to note that the respondents have not been able to understand the basic scheme of the GST Act. The input tax credit is admissible under section 16(1) of the GST Act of the tax paid on goods and services used in the course of the business. The input tax credit claimed by a taxable person gets credited into his electronic credit ledger. Such amount is the actual tax that such taxable person has paid to his supplier, which is further paid to the Government treasury. Thereafter, while making the payment of the output tax, Section 49 of the GST Act entitles a taxable person to utilize the balance available in the electronic credit ledger. Thus, the tax which was already paid by a taxable person is effectively allowed to be set off against the output tax liability. Therefore, the tax payment through the electronic credit ledger is a legally recognized mode of payment under the GST Act. In fact, it is a settled legal position that the input tax credit is ‘as good as tax paid’ by the assessee. Thus, the payment of tax by utilization of the tax credit is a valid mode of payment. The denial to release refund/ reimbursement on the ground that only part amount has been paid by the writ-applicants through the electronic cash ledger is not legally tenable.
Not only the order is non-speaking but cryptic in nature and the reason of cancellation not decipherable there from: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In Vinayak Metal v. State of Gujarat and Ors., R/SCA No. 5480 of 2022, 5482 of 2022 & 5485 of 2022, Hon’ble HC held that on bare perusal of the contents of the show cause notice as well as the impugned order, we find that the said show cause notice is absolutely vague, bereft of any material particulars and the impugned order is also vague and a non-speaking order. It cannot be disputed that with cancellation of registration, the dealer is liable to both civil and penal consequences. To say the least, the authority ought to have at least referred to the contents of the show cause and the response thereto, which was not done. Not only the order is non-speaking but cryptic in nature and the reason of cancellation not decipherable there from. In such circumstances, the principles of natural justice stand violated and the order needs to be quashed as it entails penal and pecuniary consequences.
In Vimal Yahwantgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, R/Cri. Misc. Application No. 4255 of 2022- Seeking grant of Bail – tax evasion – sham companies – offence under Section 132(1)(i) read with Sections 132(4) and 132(5) of the Gujarat GST Act and the Central GST Act, 2017 – Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In Mohit Bathla v. CGST, Division Panipat, CGST Commissionerate, Panchkula, Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2022 – Seeking grant of Bail – offences punishable under Sections 132/134 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 – amount of Rs.4 Crores has been deposited with the concerned authorities and the appellant has been enjoying the facility of ad-interim bail: Hon’ble Supreme Court
The author may be reached at email@example.com*