Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal – Dated:- 22-1-2019 – Goods and Services Tax (GST), introduced from July 1, 2017 is more than a year and half old now but has resulted in operational and implementation disruptions affecting all stakeholders. GST law, as drafted and legislated, is not free from the interpretational hassles. GST Council is however, making regular changes to fix the anomalies and hardships faced by taxpayers. 32 meetings of GST Council have been held till 15th January, 2019. Taxpayers have already challenged various provisions of GST laws and rules framed thereunder with over 300 writs being filed in different courts. High courts and Supreme court have taken a liberal stand so far in view of the fact that law is new and is yet evolving. However, CBIC may move to Supreme court where the verdict is against the Government. In recent past, CBIC had issued directions to be officers to defend the writs. Further, we have now rulings from Authority for Adv
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the E- Way Bill prescribed under the provision of CGST Rules was downloaded in which the vehicle number being HP12C-2297 as well as other details were duly mentioned. Petitioner submitted that on account of activities of Transport Union, the transportation of goods with a vehicle provided by the transport union of Himanchal Pradesh is permitted to transport the goods from Himanchal Pradesh to Chandigarh and thereafter from Chandigarh to its onward journey another vehicle is required to be booked. Hence Part B was later filled by hand. The petition was filed against seizure order due to filing of part B of e-way bill by hand. The contention of the petitioner is that since the movement of goods from Baddi to Gorakhpur and also from Derabassi to Gorakhpur, was on two different vehicles via Chandigarh, hence while uploading the details, the petitioner though tried to mention the numbers and details of both set of vehicles but since the portal was not accepting two vehicle numbers for one t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
justified. In B.R. Agriculture Industries v. State of U.P. (2018) 8 TMI 210 (Allahabad), the goods of the petitioner have been seized from the business place in pursuance of a seizure order passed under Section 67. Since respondents wanted time to file counter affidavit, it was held that where the amount equal to value of tax and penalty be deposited as security by way other than by cash or bank guarantee or indemnity bond, to the satisfaction of the seizing authority goods under seizure shall be released forthwith. In Ramesh Chand Kannu Mal v. State of UP (2018) 5 TMI 761; the petitioner is a firm dealing with all kinds of Iron Scrap etc. and is registered under the provision of GST Act, 2017. The respondent passed a seizure order by which he has seized the goods as well as vehicle on the ground that the goods were being transported from outside the state of U.P. without the Transit Declaration Form, which is in violation of law. It was contended that there is no requirement for gener
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t on date of incident i.e. 24-3-2018, neither there was any E-way bill system nor any notification by Central Government under rule 138, requiring carrying of a TDF Form or any other such document in course of inter-State supply/movement of goods, impugned order passed by Department was to be set aside. The court observed that on the relevant date i.e. 24.03.2018, there was no requirement of carrying TDF Form-1 in the case of an inter-State supply of goods. In fact on the relevant date there was no prescription of the documents to be carried in this regard under Rule 138 of the CGST Act, 2017, accordingly, the seizure and penalty imposed upon the petitioners based on the notification dated 21.7.2017 issued under Rule 138 of the UPGST Act 2017, which was not applicable, is clearly illegal. The goods and vehicles were ordered to be released forthwith and Authorities directed to return the amount paid in pursuance of seizure proceedings. In Vertible Technologies & Designs v. State Tax
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
kings of more than 25 kgs were branded goods, the rest were unbranded. The officers visited the factory and under threat, collected cheques for ₹ 19.74 lakh but petitioner instructed the bank not to clear the cheques and hence cheques were returned by bank unpaid. The department subsequently issued show cause notice for recovery of ₹ 36.88 lakhs and provisionally attached bank account. Again, the adjudicating authority issued fresh notice under the purported exercise of powers under Section 74(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act calling upon the petitioners to show cause why a sum of ₹ 1.29 crores towards CGST and SGST not be recovered from the period between July, 2017 and 20-2-2018. The petitioners have challenged this second show cause notice, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The court held that practice of collecting post-dated cheques under coercion during raid is not permissible means of collection of revenue particularly when no tax demand confir
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =