2018-TIOL-GST-195 Dated: Thursday, July 26, 2018

TOP NEWS

GST refund to charitable institutions - Rs 325 Cr fund earmarked for two years

GST - Latest decisions to improve compliance, says FICCI

ARTICLES

To follow or not, the CBIC Circular, is the question-Part II

Time limit for taking credit - amendment needed in s.16 of CGST Act

2A vs 3B-Scrutiny notices from State GST Authorities - need for restraint

GST - Hurried Amendments & Unexpected rate-cut - Does it mean Early Polls?

Sanitary Napkins Exempted - Who benefits?

HIGH COURT CASES

2018-TIOL-84-HC-KERALA-GST

Berger Paints India Ltd Vs State Tax Officer

GST - the petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing & dealing in paints - The petitioner owned some paint mixing machinery which was seized by the Department - The petitioner provided bank guarantee & security bond to secure release of the machinery as well as the vehicle transporting it - While the petitioner was contemplating to avail appellate remedy, the Department threatened to invoke bank guarantee - Hence the present writ was filed to challenge invoking of bank guarantee.

Held - Section 107 of the CGST Act r/w Section 108 of the GST Rules allows three months' time to avail appellate remedy - Hence it would be inequitable if the Department invokes the bank guarantees before the petitioner exhausts appellate remedy & such remedy would become illusory - Hence the Department is restrained from invoking bank guarantee within such three month period: HC (Para 1,2,5,6) - Writ Petition Allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-83-HC-KERALA-GST

CB Furniture and Interious Vs GST Council

GST - the petitioner is a dealer who was unable to upload Form GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated time frame on account of some technical error - Consequently the petitioner was unable to take credit of input tax available to it upon migration to GST - Hence the present writ is filed seeking appropriate directions.

Held - The petitioner is directed to approach and make representation before the jurisdictional Nodal Officer, who would look into the matter and enable the uploading of Form GST TRAN-1 - Where it is found that the petitioner was unable to upload Form GST TRAN-1 for no fault of its own, then the Nodal Officer will also enable the petitioner to take credit on input tax available on migration to GST: HC (Para 1,5,6) - Writ Petition Disposed Of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-82-HC-KERALA-GST

Selfshine Polymers India Pvt Ltd Vs State of Kerala

2018-TIOL-81-HC-DEL-GST

Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd Vs UoI

GST - the petitioner was aggrieved by the denial of exemption from payment of Customs duty for goods imported for fulfiling export obligations - The petitioner had been issued advance authorisations under the extant FTP 2015-20 - In this regard, it claimed that existing exemption under Customs notifications could not be denied merely due to introduction of GST - The petitioner claimed that levy of IGST was not subject of the amended provisions of the Customs Act.

Held - the imports which are the subject matter in the present writ had been made after introduction of GST - The petitioner was beneficiary of an advance license issued on July 17, 2017 & at that point of time the exemption notifications were not in existence - The exemption from IGST was not in force at that point of time & the Customs notifications were amended on October 13, 2017 - In such circumstances, as the exemption in fact existed during the period of dispute, the Department must verify whether the petitioner fulfilled the export obligations pursuant to advance license - If in the affirmative, no further action is warranted - If in the negative, then necessary assessment be made - The proceedings be completed within four months: HC - Writ Petition Disposed Of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-80-HC-DEL-GST

Narendra Plastic Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - the petitioners herein were unable to clear certain goods without payment of IGST, inspite of relief measures announced by the Government for exporters - The relief sought by the claimants is identical to the relief claimed in the case of Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Held - considering relevant findings of this court in Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. , the petitioners herein are to be entitled to similar relief - Hence the present petitions are disposed of to provide similar relief as provided by the Court in Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. : HC - Writ Petition Disposed Of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-79-HC-MAD-GST

Consolidated Premium Retailers Vs Principal Commissioner, GST

GST - the petitioner is a dealer who was unable to uplod Form GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated time frame, on account of some system error - Consequently, the petitioer was unable to take credit of input tax available to it upon migration to GST - Hence the present writ seeking appropriate directions in this regard.

Held - to alleviate difficulties faced by assessees on account of technical glitches, the CBIC had set up a Grievance Redressal Mechanism vide Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST dated 03.4.2018 - As per such mechanism, Nodal Officers have been appointed to redress such grievances - The repsective commissionerates are directed to set up Nodal Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu if not appointed already - Hence the petitioner is directed to approach & make representations before the jurisdictional Nodal Officer who would take appropriate decisions within three weeks of date of application: HC (Para 2,11,12) - Writ Petition Disposed Of: MADRAS HIGH COURT