NOTIFICATIONS
41/2019
Seeks to waive the late fees in certain cases for the month of July, 2019 for FORM GSTR-1 and GSTR-6 provided the said returns are furnished by 20.09.2019.
40/2019
Seeks to extend the last date in certain cases for furnishing GSTR-7 for the month of July, 2019.
39/2019
Seeks to bring Section 103 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 in to force.
38/2019
Seeks to waive filing of FORM ITC-04 for F.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19.
HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-2004-HC-AHM-GST
Aap And Company Vs UoI
GST - Writ application has been preferred by thirty-one applicants and they have inter alia prayed that pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay any recovery proceedings for the recovery of late fees for late filing of Form GSTR-3B for the period 1st July 2017 to 30th September 2018 for which returns are furnished between 1st July, 2017 to 21st December, 2018.
Held: Although the cause may remain the same, yet each of the writ applicant ought to have preferred a separate one page petition - Bench directs that the counsel file a one page petition insofar as the writ applicants Nos. 2 to 31 are concerned - The order which Bench proposes to pass as on date shall be construed to be an order passed only in the case of the writ applicant No.1 - Petitioner submits that the levy of late fees for the late filing of the Form GSTR- 3B under Section 47 of the CGST Act as well as the SGST Act is illegal and not sustainable in law; that the GSTR-3B cannot be read in Section 39 - writ applicant seeks the benefit of complete waiver of late fees in accordance with the second proviso to the Notification No. 76/2018-Central Tax dated 31.12.2018 for the returns furnished upto September 2018 - levy of late fees by virtue of the power under Section 47 of the Act is something else which this Court will have to look into and adjudicate - Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 16.10.2019 - Bench is of the view that the writ applicants have been able to make a strong prima facie case to have an ad-interim order in terms of Para -7(d): High Court [para 2, 3, 9 to 12]
- Ad interim relief granted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-2003-HC-AHM-GST
Shree Ram Twistex Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Vehicle and the goods came to be seized u/s 129 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and proceedings u/s 130 of the Act have also been initiated for the purpose of confiscation of the goods as well as the vehicle - It is undisputed that the amount of tax and penalty determined by the authority u/s 129 has been deposited on 29.08.2019 - in these circumstances, Bench directs the authority to release the goods as well as vehicle - it is open for the authority to proceed further insofar as the proceedings u/s 130 are concerned but the same shall be subject to the final outcome of this Writ application - Returnable on 25.09.2019: High Court
- Interim order passed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-2002-HC-MP-GST
Ajay Khanna Vs State Tax Anti Evasion Bureau
GST - Bail - During the relevant period, the State Tax Evasion Bureau visited the premises of a certain company, pursuant to orders passed by the Commissioner of State Tax - However, it was found that no business activity was being carried out at such premises - Statements were taken from the proprietor of such company, whereupon it was found that in order to take illegal financial profits as input tax credit, such company had issued bogus and fabricated bills and had shown false supplies of the goods - Hence such company was found to have committed offence u/s 122 of the CGST Act - Also, in order to grant illegal financial profit to the recipients through bogus bills by transferring ITC, a huge sum had been misappropriated through tax evasion, causing loss of revenue to the State - Upon investigation, it was found that several persons were involved in preparing bogus firms through which illegal profits were granted to the recipients and that false bills had been generated without actual supply of goods - Considering the massive amount of tax embezzled, two persons involved in such activities, were arrested - Hence the present application for bail was filed by one of them.
Held - Section 69 of the CGST Act empowers the Commissioner to make arrests, if he has reasons to believe that a person committed an offence specified in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 132 of the CGST Act - These define the types of offences and according to which, whoever commits offence of supply of any goods or service without issue of any invoice or issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both or avails ITC using such invoice, would be punished with imprisonment for upto 5 years with fine, where the amount involved is more than Rs 500 lakhs - It was alleged that the applicant served as the accountant the firm and had issued bogus and fabricated bills and showed false supply of goods and helped in the embezzlement of such huge amounts of tax - In his statements given u/s 70 of the CGST Act, the applicant admitted to have served as the accountant of such firm and also that he issued bills for bogus firms without supply of goods - As the investigation is on-going, bail cannot be granted to the applicant: HC
Bail application rejected: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
