M\/s Khandelwal Extractions Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 6 Others
GST
2018 (12) TMI 891 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 432 (All), 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 727 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 14-12-2018
Writ Tax No. – 1605 of 2018
GST
Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.
\nFor the Petitioner : Rahul Agarwal
\nFor the Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Dhananjay Awasthi
\nORDER
\nSAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,J.
\n1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh and the exparte order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for Goods and Services Tax, Uttar Pradesh, by which the said Appellate Authority has upheld the order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh, on two counts (that had been decided against the petitioner) and has partly modified the order of the original authority (on the issue that had b<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n De-oiled Cake\/De-oiled Rice Bran being used as an ingredient of Cattle Feed, Poultry Feed and other animal Feeds and is 'Waste generated' during the Solvent Extraction process? = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 8 was unrealistically short and; in any case the petitioner's counsel was in some difficulty on the date so fixed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n . In that light, it has been submitted, a very short time was granted to the petitioner to appear in the appeal proceedings, inasmuch as the notice itself was issued on 20.09.2018 fixing the date 26.09.2018. No prior intimation having been given to the petitioner of the likely date of hearing being fixed to 26.09.2018, it is then submitted that on account of intervening public holidays, the petitioner was not at fault in seeking a short date\/adjournment. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n appears wholly harsh and unreasonable on the part of the Appellate Authority to have refused the short adjournment sought, and to have proceeded to decide the appeal itself on merits. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Khandelwal Extractions Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 6 OthersGST2018 (12) TMI 891 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 432 (All), 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 727 (All.)ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 14-12-2018Writ Tax No. – 1605 of 2018 GSTSaumitra Dayal Singh, J. For the Petitioner : Rahul Agarwal For … Continue reading “M\/s Khandelwal Extractions Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 6 Others”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15555","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15555"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15555\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n Ans.- Mahua De-oiled cake\/ De-oiled Rice Bran is a byproduct occurred during the Solvent Extraction process, which is used as an ingredient of Cattle Feed, Poultry Feed and other animal feeds.
\n b) Whether the applicant is eligible to get entire tax input credit of GST paid on purchase of Mahua Oil Cake\/Rice Bran Oil cake used in the manufacture of solvent extracted oil?
\n Ans.- The Input credit of GST paid on purchase of Mahua Oil Cake\/Rice Bran Oil cake used in the manufacturer of solvent extracted oil is partially allowed as per process\/formula prescribed in the Chapter V (INPUT TAX CREDIT) of GST Rule, 2017, because, the applicant manufacturing both taxable and exempted goods by using raw materials viz. Mahua De-oiled cake and De-oiled Rice Bran. Further, if common inputs are used for both taxable <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAccordingly, an adjournment application was made by the petitioner through electronic mail, received by the Appellate Authority on 24\/25.09.2018.
\n7. It is in this factual background that the aforesaid adjournment application was rejected by the Appellate Authority with the following observation:
\n “None appeared for personal hearing. Appellant vide their e-mail letter dated 24\/25.09.2018 requested for postponement of the date of personal hearing to some other date in month of October due to non availability of their counsel.
\n As the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling Uttar Pradesh consist of a member of the Central GST and a member of State GST and the appeal is to be decided in a time bound manner, it is not possible to extend the date of personal hearing to another date. So the appeal is being taken up for consideration based on the facts and documents availabl<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n11. In this regard, it has also been submitted that the provisions of Section 101(2) of the Act may be directory but certainly is not mandatory and in any case there was sufficient time available even after 26.09.2018 for the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within the stipulated period.
\n12. Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent no. 5, Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 7 and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, would submit that the petitioner<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n15. The legislative intent being to provide early\/prompt decision in such matters, within ninety days of institution, it would be wholly desirable for the original as also the Appellate Authority to provide for a mechanism where, upon registration of the application\/appeal itself, the likely date of hearing may first be indicated to the applicant in appeal, by electronic mail procedure itself, so that the concerned assessee may stay aware, both of the likely dates of sitting of authority and of hearing on his application\/appeal and may arrange his affairs accordingly.
\n16. The frequency and length of the sitting\/s may be facts known only to the concerned authorities depending on the number of pending applications\/appeals and availbility of the members on certain dates. Communication of the date of heari<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n