Category: High Court

GST ArticleHigh Court

GST on concession fee leviable from Duty Free Shops as subsequently refund can be claimed of ITC on account of zero-rated supplies making entire transaction revenue neutral

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of FlemingoDutyfree Shop (P.) Ltd. directed the Petitioner to pay the amount of tax relating to the Concession fee from duty free shops and claim refund thereafter. However, the larger question relating to the non-leviability of tax on the concession fee from duty free shops was not delved upon as the entire transaction would be revenue neutral.

GST ArticleHigh Court

GST refund can be granted under IDS as per the modified formula

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. allowed the writ petitions seeking GST refund under Inverted Duty Structure based on Section 54(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules. The Assessee filed a rectification application for differential refund as per the amended formula which was rejected by issuance of SCN on the ground that refund as per the old formula was already granted to the Assessee…

GST ArticleHigh Court

Accused/Taxpayer cannot be kept in custody beyond the period of sixty days if complaint has not been filed pursuant to investigation for offences specified under GST Laws

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Tax, GST dismissed the writ petition filed by the Department and held that, Accused/Taxpayer cannot be kept in custody beyond a period of more than sixty days when the complaint, pursuant to the investigation, relating to offences specified under GST Laws has not been filed.  The said relief has been granted by invoking the powers under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”) [Now Section 187(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita].

GST ArticleHigh Court

Department shall provide the copies of documents/data derived from seized items during search and seizure proceedings

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aimay (P) Ltd. directed the Department to comply with the provisions of Section 67 of the CGST Act by ensuring that the copies of the documents and data seized be provided to the Petitioner, and the documents, records, laptops, CPUS and Mobile Phones are seized only till the time they are required but the time period in any case shall not exceed the time period later than 30 days after issuance of notice.

GST ArticleHigh Court

Telecom towers are moveable property which are eligible for ITC

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited held that telecommunication towers do not qualify test of permanency, they are not ‘attached to earth’, they can be dismantled and moved and are never erected with an intent of conferring permanency and their placement on concrete bases was only to enable those towers to overcome vagaries of nature. Hence, they can be considered as moveable property which is eligible for Input Tax Credit (“ITC”).

GST ArticleHigh Court

Gujarat High Court sent case back to reconsider refund request as per CBIC’s circular on adjusted total turnover calculation

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kashi Exports disposed of the petition where the Assessee was exporting goods under LUT was paid refund of unutilized accumulated ITC as per the Rules 89(4)of the CGST Rules, during pendency of petition, clarification issued on manner of calculation of Adjusted Total Turnover consequent to Explanation (c) inserted in Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules. Hence, the refund application was to be reconsidered.

GST ArticleHigh Court

Ratification cannot substitute recommendation

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of the CBIC and Ors. v. Barkataki Print and Media Services & Ors. dismissed the review petition wherein the Petitioner had file review application of Barkataki Print and Media Services v. Union of India , whereby the Court had held that Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated December 28, 2028 to be ultra vires of the CGST Act. Hence, the said order was set aside and the Notification was quashed.

GST ArticleHigh Court

Notice/ Order shall be mandatorily be served through post or electronic mode

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Udamalpet Sarvodaya Sangham allows the writ petition where it was held that Section 169 of the CGST Act mandates a notice to be served in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively and on a failure or impracticability of adopting any of the aforesaid modes, then the State can, in addition, make a publication of such notices/ summons/ orders in the portal/ newspaper through the concerned officials.