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.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-04-13
A preliminary objection was raised by Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the ground of availability of a statutory remedy of appeal before the Addl. Commissioner, Grade II (Appeal) under section 107 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017, however, Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner responded by submitting that the very basis for the impugned action i.e. Rule 138 of U.P.G.S.T. Rules 2017 and the notification issued by the State Government thereunder as also section 129 of U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 was apparently inapplicable, therefore, the preliminary objection is not tenable.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-04-13
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the State. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in manufacture and supply as well as export of industrial SS Tube, fittings and pipe fittings etc. The petitioner is registered under the provision of GST. The petitioner's office is situated at Industrial Area Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad. An order has been received by the petitioner from one M/s Kansara Laljibhai Mohanlal, 7, Parsana Society, R.K. Watch Stree, 50 Feet Road, Rajkot, Gujarat for supply of 4942 kg of stainless steel welded pipes against the tax invoice dated 07.04.2018. The goods were being sold to the consignee situates at Rajkot for a sum of Rs.5,43,631/-. The petitioner has charged the IGST @ 18% on the aforesaid amount. The aforesaid goods were booked through M/s Jai Hind Tempo Transport Service, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. The goods were loaded in vehicle U.P.16- AT-5489 against the challan/GR no. 1116 dated 07.04.2018. The petitioner has downloaded e-way bill having Unique No.431003252396 dated 07.04.2018 at 08.05 P.M. from the web portal of the Central Government and e-way bill consisted of all the details of the consignor, consignee, the challan number, its date, value of the goods, its HSN Code, the place of delivery of goods and the reason for its transportation. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the validity of the e-way bill showed that it is not valid for movement as Part B is not entered.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-04-12
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the State and Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Petitioner is unit of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and registered under the U.P. VAT Act with effect from 01.04.2011. After the enforcement of the GST with effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioner was required to generate a user ID and password for migration from VAT to GST and for the purpose U.P. VAT Department was authorised by the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) for providing ID and password to the existing dealer to migrate existing TIN to new GST numbers.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-04-11
It is contended that in view of Section 173 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 172 and Sections 192 and 193 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 are omitted and, thus, the respondent-Municipal Corporation, is vested with no power to levy advertisement tax and it is only GST, which shall be applicable. It is further submitted that since now the Municipal Corporation is left with no authority to levy any advertisement tax, the impugned tender notice dated 31.03.2018 issued for realising advertisement tax is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. Prima facie, the issue requires scrutiny. Shri Sudhanhsu Pandey, who has accepted notices on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioners will have two weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit.
High Court of Allahabad
Date of Order:
It is contended that in view of Section 173 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 172 and Sections 192 and 193 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 are omitted and, thus, the respondent-Municipal Corporation, is vested with no power to levy advertisement tax and it is only GST, which shall be applicable. It is further submitted that since now the Municipal Corporation is left with no authority to levy any advertisement tax, the impugned tender notice dated 24.03.2018 issued for realising advertisement tax is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. Prima facie, the issue requires scrutiny. Shri Abhinav Ojha, who has accepted notices on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioners will have two weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit.
Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-04-11
In terms of the provisions contained in the Goods and Services Tax Statutes brought into force with effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, who have migrated to the GST regime, should have uploaded FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time stipulated to avail input tax credit in respect of their old stock. It is stated by the petitioners that all of them have though attempted to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time limit stipulated, they could not complete the process of uploading the form due to IT related glitches. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard in these writ petitions.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-04-10
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the seizure order passed by the respondent no. 3 dated 30.03.2018 and the notice dated 30.03.2018 issued under Section 191(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017. The petitioner is having its registered office in Chandigarh and branch office at Gorakhpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing of medicines and mineral water and its manufacturing unit is situated at Derabassi, Punjab and Baddi, Himanchal Pradesh. Certain stock has been transferred against the stock transfer invoices after paying the IGST @ 18% and the goods were being transported from Himanchal Pradesh and the EWay 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.
Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-04-06
The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of a tender invited by the 1st respondent, Kerala State Electricity Board for supply of 8M and 9M Pre Stressed Concrete Poles (PSC Poles) to the Electrical Circles under Southern and Central Region, for a period of two years, as per Ext.P1 notification dated 28.09.2017. The legal as well as factual contentions raised in the writ petitions are almost typical in nature. For the disposal of the writ petitions, I am relying upon the pleadings and the documents in W.P.(C) No. 1112 of 2018.