Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
Assistant Commissioner could not have refused to comply with the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II): Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In M/s Globus Petroadditions Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and Ors., Writ Petition No. 3298 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that on perusal of the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner indicates that he has refused to comply with the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) by recording reasons as to why the said Order cannot be complied with as if the Assistant Commissioner was sitting in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In our view the Assistant Commissioner could not have refused to comply with the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) on the ground that a decision was taken to impugn the said Order dated 14.10.2019 before GST Tribunal or on other ground recorded by the Assistant Commissioner about his dissent not to follow the said Order passed by his Superior Authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals- II). Impugned Order set aside.
Bank guarantee shall not to be invoked till the period for filing the appeal expires: Hon’ble Kerala High Court
In National Radio Electronics Corporation v. State Tax Officer and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 40 of 2022, Hon’ble HC held that having regard to the period of three months available to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against Ext. P3 order, I am of the opinion that it is essential in the interests of justice that the bank guarantee is not invoked till the period for filing the appeal expires. The order dated 20.12.2021 produced as Ext. P3 shows that the 1st respondent has invoked the bank guarantee along with the order under Section 129 CGST Act, itself. This writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to withhold invocation of the bank guarantee for a period of four months from 20.12.2021 to enable the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.
The date of cancellation of registration is from the date the petitioner had applied for cancellation of his registration and not from the date when its registration was cancelled by the authority: Hon’ble Delhi High Court
In Rakesh Kumar Garg v. Assistant Commissioner and Ors., W.P.(C) 2188/2022 & CM APPLs.6269-6270/2022, Hon’ble HC held that from the aforesaid paragraph, it is apparent that the Petitioner’s registration has been cancelled at the request of the petitioner and the Appellate Authority has categorically held that the Petitioner was entitled to discontinue its business. Further, the date of cancellation of registration is from the date the petitioner had applied for cancellation of his registration i.e. 4th March, 2020 and not from the date when its registration was cancelled by the respondent no. 1. In view of the aforesaid categorical order of the Appellate Authority, this Court is of the view that the reliance of the respondents on the order dated 5th August, 2020 is misconceived. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the Respondent No.1 is directed to comply with the order dated 5th April, 2021 by allowing the petitioner to surrender his GSTIN voluntarily w.e.f. 4th March, 2020.
Every provisional order cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act: Hon’ble Delhi High Court
In Karamjit Jaiswal v. Commissioner of Central Taxes GST Delhi East, W.P.(C) 2408/2022, Hon’ble HC held that admittedly, every provisional order cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act. After the issuance of the impugned orders, no fresh attachment order has been issued. Consequently, this Court directs the Respondent to defreeze the bank account and release the immovable properties of the Petitioner not later than three days from the date of uploading the order.
GST on grant of mining rights challenged: before Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court
In Veerabhadar Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, W. P. No. 2769 of 2022, Hon’ble HC observed that since the very issue as to whether GST would be chargeable on minerals on which already royalty has been paid is actively under consideration before a Nine Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the present matter, the petitioner has made out a case for interim order. Stayed in the meantime.
Bail Granted:
In Rajesh Mittal v. State of Haryana, CRM-4080-2022 in/& CRM-M-42233-2020 (O&M), Seeking grant of regular bail – allegation alleged against the petitioner is of evading goods and service tax and the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 02 years and 08 months.
The author may be reached at abhishek@gstivy.in*