Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
Allowed the filing of form TRAN-1: Hon’ble Madras High Court
In M/s Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and Ors., W.P. No. 35841 of 2019 and W.M.P. No. 36743 of 2019, Issue: Reopening of the portal for filing of form TRAN-1. Hon’ble HC held that the facts on record indicate that right from the beginning, the petitioner has been writing letters/representation to the respondents to allow the petitioner to file TRAN-1 and that the petitioner had experienced the difficulties on account of technical glitches in the GST web portal of the respondents. Since the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner, this writ petition is allowed.
Section 83(2) of the Act ceased to have an effect on the expiry of one year: Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In M/s Futurist Innovation & Advertising v. UOI and Ors., Writ Petition (ST.) No. 15785 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that the principles laid down in the case of Radha Krishan Industries apply to the facts of this court. We are respectfully bound by the said judgement. In our view, the provisional attachment levied by the Respondents on 11 October 2019 under Section 83(2) of the Act ceased to have an effect on the expiry of one year.
Appeal allowed to be uploaded at the appropriate forum along with condoning delay: Hon’ble Tripura High Court
In M/s Tropical Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and Ors., W.P(C) No. 701 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that this Court need not enter into the niceties of law in this respect. Factually, the petitioner had uploaded an appeal may be before the wrong portal but it is obligatory on the part of the authorities concerned in such an event to bring it to the notice of the appellant that the appeal has been filed before the wrong authority so that the appellant can take necessary action in the said regard. It appears from the record that the appellant was unaware that it had uploaded its appeal before the Central Portal instead of the State Portal of the GST. Admittedly, as noted in Para-6 hereinabove in the reply filed by the State GST authority, they have now located the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Central authorities. And directed that the petitioner shall file a fresh appeal and upload the said appeal before the appropriate authority i.e. the State Portal of the GST and all appellate authority, Central, as well as State, are advised that in the event people filed appeals before the wrong forum, the appellant or assessee in particular, ought to be informed by email about the error committed by them since all these facilities are fairly new and it requires time to carry out necessary corrections
Whether the transport of gold was with an intention to evade tax or not is a matter which requires appreciation of disputed facts and hence the statutory authority will have to consider the same after appreciating the facts: Hon’ble Kerala High Court
In Kamalesh Sen v. The Assistant State Tax Officer Kozhikode, WP(C) No. 29966 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that the respondent has given a reason for initiating proceedings u/s. 130. The correctness or otherwise of the said reason is not a matter which can be considered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in the light of the fact that, the petitioner was not in possession of any documents contemplated under law. Whether the transport of gold was with an intention to evade tax or not is a matter which requires appreciation of disputed facts and hence the statutory authority will have to consider the same after appreciating the facts. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that, this is not a fit case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence there is no merit in this writ petition.
The rule itself has provided that the Electronic Credit Ledger cannot be blocked for a period of more than a year: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In M/s Ambika Creation v. Commissioner, Govt. of Gujarat, R/SCA No. 17564 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that the rule itself has provided that the Electronic Credit Ledger can be blocked for a period of one year. On the expiry of a period of one year, it would automatically get unblocked. In fact, it was the duty of the authority concerned to permit the assessee, i.e. the writ-applicant, to avail the input credit available in his ledger. Once the statutory period comes to an end, the authority has no further discretion in the matter, unless a fresh order is passed. In the case on hand, it is very unfortunate to note that despite the fact that the period of one year elapsed, the authority did not permit the writ-applicant to avail the credit available in his ledger.
Bail Allowed: In Amit Kumar Agarwal v. State of Orissa and Ors., BLAPL No. 9043 of 2021 – Input Tax Credit – Claim and availment of bogus ITC on the basis of fake invoices by creating and operating 13 fictitious firms – offences u/s. 132(1)(b), (c) & (l) of the OGST Act – Hon’ble Orissa High Court.
The author may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org*