CASE LAWS IN \u2018GST\u2019
By: – DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 24-10-2017<\/p>\n
The litigation on GST has already started. In this article, the decided cases on GST by the High Courts are discussed.
\nChallenging the implementation of GST
\nIn 'Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai V. Union of India' – 2017 (9) TMI 389 – Bombay High Court, a public interest litigation was filed by the petitioner challenging the decision of the Government to implement GST with effect from 01.07.2017 on the following grounds-
\n * That implementation is without Parliamentary sanction and implementation in the midst of the financial year is not valid;
\n * That the preparations are not well to adopt the new system as the rates of CGST done just a week back for which many representation from the public are not yet replied\/rectified;
\n * That the States\/Union territories are not yet decided, not made laws and not declared their proposed rate, not prepared well for smooth imp<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s and taxes have been notified; = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n t of credit is available vis-à-vis such Advance Authorization licenses issued prior to 1st July, 2017; = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ll be deemed to be concluded. The Statute also provides for the release of the goods pending passing of the order. The goods seizure shall be released, on a provisional basis, under execution of a bond and furnishing or a security. The provisions also provide for adjudication following detention of goods including the provisional release of pending adjudication. When the statute itself provides for such a mechanism, a deviation there from cannot be ordered. The Government pleader himself agreed that the adjudication will be completed within one week. The High Court set aside the judgment under appeal and directs the respondent to issue necessary notice and conduct physical verification in the presence of the respondent and complete adjudication. The High Court gave also liberty to the Revenue to comply with Rule 140(1) and get provisional release on that basis. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n espondents or the concerned authorities of the Commercial Tax Department. The High Court dismissed the petition as premature. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n executed prior to 01.07.2017, GST cannot be imposed and 2% VAT alone is applicable. The High Court held that there will be a direction to the Commissioner of Commercial taxes to consider the representation given by the petitioner\/association and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court. The writ petition is allowed by way of remand. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CASE LAWS IN \u2018GST\u2019By: – DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJANGoods and Services Tax – GSTDated:- 24-10-2017 The litigation on GST has already started. In this article, the decided cases on GST by the High Courts are discussed. Challenging the implementation of GST In 'Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai V. Union of India' – 2017 (9) TMI 389 – Bombay … Continue reading “CASE LAWS IN \u2018GST\u2019”<\/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-8367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8367","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=8367"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8367\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n * rules have been framed and notified;
\n * wide publicity is given in public domain;
\n * entire machinery has been geared up not only to accept new challenge but to ensure GST is implemented effectively.
\nThe High Court was not inclined to entertain PIL and the same was dismissed by the High Court.
\nAdditional levy of IGST
\nIn 'Narendra Plastic Private Limited V. Union of India & Others' – 2017 (9) TMI 674 – Delhi High Court, the grievance of the petitioner is that it holds export orders placed on it prior to 1st July 2017 for the fulfillment of which it has to undertake imports of inputs. The petitioner seeks to explain that, with the change brought about by the GST regime, the petitioner would have no option but to pay IGST out of its sources causing a working capital blockage. The High Court held that the petitioner is not questioning the legislative competence to levy the additional IGST. It is only questioning the applicability of such levy even t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n * this interim direction is further subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking by way of an affidavit filed in this Court within one week to the effect that in the case the petitioner ultimately not succeeding in this writ petition, or failing to fulfill its export obligations, it is liable to pay the entire IGST as was leviable, together with interest as the Court may determine at the time final disposal of the writ petition;
\n * the petitioner will furnish to the Customs Department the entire list of its Advance Authorizations that are valid as on 1st July, 2017 and a list of the export orders placed on the petition prior to 1st July, 2017;
\n * the above direction will only apply to those imports which are made by the petitioner for fulfillment of its export orders placed with it prior to 1st July, 2017 and not to any export order thereafter.
\nDetention of goods
\nI<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nRate of GST on old and scrap buses
\nIn 'M\/s M.J.S. Enterprises and others V. The controller of Stores & Purchase and others' <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nComposition levy
\nIn 'Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association V. Union of India and others' – 2017 (10) TMI 254 – Rajasthan High Court, the main grievance is that GST network system is not working up to the level and the same is required to be correct and updated to meet the requirements. The High Court held that the problem occurring in system must be immediately report. No coercive action against any of the client of the petitioner members who are referred in the petition and are informing by email, will be protected. The composition scheme is extended up to 30.09.2017, therefore, desirous assessee can apply. Those who could not apply under composition scheme up to 16.08.2017, their applications will be accepted and if their cases does not fall under composition log-in they will send it by email and their applications will be accepted with effect from 01.07.201<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIssuing of password
\nIn 'M\/s Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Private Limited V. State of UP and five others' – 2017 (10) TMI 784 – Allahabad High Court, the case of the petitioner is that since the password has not been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to complete the process of migration as provided under section 139 of the CGST Act read with Rule 24(1) of CGST Rules 2017. The High Court held that on inquiry made by the petition, the petitioner has been informed on the GST portal that the petitioner will not be allowed to deposit tax and fur<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n