Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
Two prerequisite of Rule 86-A: Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In M/s Dee Vee Project Ltd. v. Government of Maharashtra and Ors., Writ Petition No. 2693 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that there are two pre-requisite of Rule 86-A (i) the Competent Authority or the Commissioner having been satisfied on the basis of material available before him that blocking of ECL for the reasons is necessary (ii) recording the reasons in writing for such an exercise of the power. As the impugned order is bereft of the said pre-requisite hence illegal and quashed. Summary at https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6900812267718291456
Exemption benefit to leasing out residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals: Hon’ble Karnataka High Court
In M/s Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. AAAR, Karnataka and Ors., W.P. No. 14891 of 2020 (T-RES), Hon’ble HC granted the benefit of the exemption notification i.e., entry no. 13 of NN. 09/2017 dated 28.09.2017 for the service provided by the petitioner i.e., leasing out residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals. Summary at https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6898145521614020608
Refund the interest amount charged post the amendment of section 50: Hon’ble Calcutta High Court
In M/s Finex Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., WPA No. 7592 of 2020, Hon’ble HC held that since the adjudication order is being set aside due to the retrospective change in law, the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the same, and accordingly, respondent concerned shall verify the refundable amount as claimed by the petitioner which, according to the petitioner, is 1,35,14,156/-; and on verification, if it is found that claim of the petitioner is correct, in that event respondent concerned shall refund the same, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order by taking into consideration the aforesaid amendment.
One year period has already elapsed. As of date, the order of provisional attachment cannot be said to be in-force: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In Indrajeet Ramyash Pande v. State of Gujarat and Ors., R/SCA No. 14736 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that we need not adjudicate this writ application any further because the statutory life of the order of provisional attachment of the bank account has come to an end. The intimation of the Bank is dated 20.01.2021. This would necessarily imply that the order of provisional attachment must have been passed by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner any time before the 20th. One year period has already elapsed. As of date, the order of provisional attachment cannot be said to be in-force. In such circumstances, the IDBI Bank shall now permit the writ applicant to operate his bank account. This is without prejudice to the rights of the department to initiate any further action, if they intend to in accordance with law
Department to sanction the refund of the IGST paid in regard to the goods exported with 9% simple interest: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In M/s Sri App Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Customs and Ors., R/SCA No. 15431 of 2021, the grievance of the writ applicant is that the exports were made in September 2017, but till this date, the I.G.S.T. has not been refunded. Hon’ble HC allowed the writ application and directed the respondents to immediately sanction the refund of the I.G.S.T. paid in regard to the goods exported i.e. the Zero Rated Supply with 9% simple interest from the date of the shipping bills till the date of actual refund.
Directed the department to decide the representation to rectify the inadvertent mistake in mentioning the incorrect place of supply: Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In M/s Jabil Circuit India Pvt. Ltd. V. UOI and Ors., Writ Petition No. 1167 of 2022, Hon’ble HC directed to decide the representation of the petitioner to rectify the inadvertent mistake in mentioning the incorrect place of supply 33 – Tamil Nadu instead of 34 – Puducherry in Form GSTR-1 for the period from February, 2018 to June, 2018 and October 2018.
Misc.
In M/s Interproductee Virtual Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and Ors., Writ Petition No. 761 of 2022 – Identical case as Saiher Supply Chain Consulting – While computing the period of limitation in case of Refund Application under GST, the period from 15th March 2020 till 2nd October 2021 shall stand excluded: Hon’ble Bombay High Court
Bail granted: Supply of packaging material to the seven fake firms – input tax credit availed or not – offence(s) under Sections 132 (1) (B) (H) (I) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Danajay Singh v. UOI and Ors., S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 18825/2021 – Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court
The author may be reached at abhishek@gstivy.in*