Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-08-06
The present application is filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-08-06
He submitted that in para 7.1 of the impugned order, it is admitted that neem cake and neem oil are by-products in the course of manufacture and neemazal formula. It is observed that merely because these two by-products are mentioned in the LOP, they do not cease to be by-products. He stressed that it is not the case of the petitioner that neem cake and neem oil are waste and scrap. The order has presumed that the petitioners have contested that the said products are waste or scrap which is an error apparent on the face of record. Admittedly, these are only by-products. The finding of the Tribunal that categorization of neem oil and neem cake is not directly relevant to the dispute is not correct because under ITC Policy para 6.8(g), if the products are by-products then there is no requirement of exporting the same product or similar product as a pre-condition to claim DTA sale facility.
Court: High Court of Madras Date of Order: 2018-07-17
After going through the aforesaid circular and the scheme of the circular, I am convinced that complete procedure has been prescribed for redressal of grievance which the petitioner has raised in this writ petition, particularly of nonuploading of FORM TRAN-I due to technical glitches. Apart from this State Government – Commissioner, Central Excise/GST has issued order dated 5.4.2018 in which Nodal Officers have already been appointed by the State Government. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to approach the Nodal Officer of Dhamtari i.e., Assistant Commissioner, State GST, Raipur Circle – 7 within four days from today by filing representation along with all necessary documents for redressal of his grievance and in turn, the said authority would consider and dispose of the same following the procedure laid down in para 8 of the circular dated 3.4.2018 and would take decision accordingly keeping in view that this writ petition remained pending since 26.3.2018.
Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-07-13
The learned Single Judge looked into the provisions defining taxable person and taxable supply as also Section 7 detailing the scope of supply to find that when a taxable person transports goods procured by them for own use to the site, where the goods are to be consumed, the transaction is not for consideration and would not even fall within the scope of Schedule I. Schedule I enumerates those activities, though made without consideration, which fall within the scope of supply. The delivery chalan which accompanied the goods had not been disputed and hence the transaction even according to the detaining officer would not fall within the scope of a taxable supply, was the finding. In such circumstances, the goods can be said to have been detained only for the infraction, insofar as a declaration under Rule 138 (KER-I) having not been uploaded and accompanied with the transport.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-05-09
The goods were handed over to the transporter who has loaded the same in a vehicle No. UP 13 AT 1153 on 4.5.2018. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that though the E-way bill post 1.4.2018 was not clear and the notification issued under CGST/UPGST Act were silent with regard to requirement of Eway bill for inter-state transactions, the petitioner dispatched the goods without generating the E-way bill
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-05-08
Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act engaged in the business of construction and development of entertainment facilities including Multiplex theatres in district Ghaziabad. Under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) an scheme was formulated on 3rd September, 2015, which was valid upto 31st March, 2020 permitting the Multiplex owners to collect entertainment tax and to retain 100% of the first year, 75% in the second and third year and 50% in the forth and fifth year. On the basis of the said scheme, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide order dated 6.12.2013 specifically permitted the petitioner to retain the entertainment tax to the above extent so as to enable it to recover the cost of construction of the Multiplex.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-05-03
The petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of his goods seized vide impugned order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit VIIth, Ghaziabad (respondent no.3) as well as consequential notice dated 24.04.2018 issued under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-04-30
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the authority of the State of U.P. for issuing the notification dated 21.07.2017 whereby which E-way bill-01 has been prescribed for the purposes of import of goods for an amount over and above Rs.50,000/- from outside the State of U.P. into the State of U.P. under the newly introduced provisions of Goods and Service Tax Laws. The aforesaid aforesaid requirement has been prescribed by the State under Rule 138 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Rules (herein short 'GST Rules').
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-04-24
The petitioner company is also registered under the GST Act, 2017 and is carrying on business of transportation of goods from one place to another. The Branch of petitioner's company is also declared in the State of U.P. which situates at Plot No.68, Ecotech-12, Greater Noida, U.P. The said Branch has been leased out to the petitioner by one M/s Paras Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for the purpose of loading and unloading of goods which are brought from the Delhi for transportation and re-loading in different vehicles to be booked for transportation of goods outside Delhi. One M/s Paharpur 3P, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, the consignor has dispatched Flexible Laminates, which are covered by invoices dated 15.04.2018, for the supply to the consignee M/s Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd., Medak, Telangana, who is also a registered dealer. Apart from the aforesaid item, the said consignor M/s Paharpur 3P has also dispatched Flexible Laminates which too are covered against the tax invoice dated 15.04.2018 to be supplied to the consignee M/s Saife Vetmed Pvt. Ltd. Dehradun, Uttrakhand which is also a registered firm. For the dispatch of the aforesaid two consignments namely for Telangana and for Deharadun, the consignor of Ghaziabad has booked the goods to be delivered both at Telangana as well as Deharadun against the Goods Receipt (GR) which has been prepared on 15.04.2018. The aforesaid consignment was loaded in Truck No. U.P.-14FT- 0643 from the premises of the consignor in small vehicle and the same are brought for transshipment Branch which is situate at Grater Noida, U.P. and the goods were reloaded in two different trucks for transportation for Telangana and Deharadun. The distance between the business place of consignor and the Grater Noida Branch of Transporter is approximately 25-30 KM.
Court: High Court of Madras Date of Order: 2018-04-24
In the impugned show cause notice, the 2nd respondent has proposed as to why the service rendered by the petitioner should not be classified as "Renting of immovable property" services as per section 65B(22) read with Section 66E(a) of the Finance Act; as to why an amount of Rs.3,85,67,112/- [Rupees three crores eighty five lakhs sixty seven thousand one hundred and twelve only] payable towards service tax for the period from 2012-13 to 2016-17 should not be demanded from the petitioner under "Renting of immovable property" services; as to why interest under section 75 of the Act should not be demanded; as to why penalty should not be imposed under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. In terms of the impugned show cause notice, the petitioner was required to produce all the evidences which they intend to rely upon in support of their defence at the time of showing cause . Further, the petitioner was to indicate in the written reply as to whether they wish to be heard in person before the case is adjudicated.