This post covers synopsis of 5 Recent and Important GST judgements. Hoping these judgements will help you to comprehend the handy issues rising in the GST regime in a superior manner.
1. Bharat Raj Punj versus Official of CGST
Case: Input tax credit claimed deceitfully by the issue of fake inward invoices.
Judgement: Arrested senior authorities of the organization subsequent to recording their statements. Additionally, Rajasthan High Court rejected the writ petition of the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -.
Remarks: It is an offence that falls under Section 132 of the GST Act. It explicitly covers cases prompting unjust availment of the Input tax credit. The Department has the ability to issue a summon or capture the guilty party on sensible grounds, without first deciding the tax.
2. Optival Health Solutions Pvt Ltd versus UOI
Case: Rectification or Revision of GST TRAN-2 structure ought to be permitted or not.
Judgement: Allowed applicant to record an amended Form GST TRAN-2 either electronically or physically.
Remarks: GST Law allows an individual to amend or update the GST Forms, who intentionally confesses to having committed an error in the structure or confesses to having submitted detail that isn’t valid. The GST Tax experts reserve the option to hold Form GST TRAN-2 for assessment reason and they may request that the petitioner give legitimate clarification to such correction/amendment.
3. Vikas Goel and Another versus CGST Commissionerate, Gurgaon (Guru-Gram)
Case: GST Bogus Billing.
Judgement: Arrested the petitioner. In addition to this denied bail of the petitioner in GST bogus billing.
Remarks: Petitioners made false bills and balanced the sum with no real supply of goods. Supplies were just shown on paper. At the time of assessment, it was discovered that premises were shut for a time of 5 years. Furthermore, found that they were evading tax since then. So, the GST Department has the ability to arrest the petitioner under Section 69 of the GST Act.
4. R K Motors versus State Tax Officer
Case: Powers given on a statutory authority ought to be practised in a proper way.
Judgement: Directed the authority to discharge the vehicle and the goods that were detained.
Remarks: Authority kept the vehicle, caught the good when driver en-steered the vehicle to some other spot rather than the place of supply. And, asked for a huge penalty to release the detained vehicle.
Since the tax in regard to goods was paid and transportation was appropriately secured by legitimate documentation, authority isn’t right to ask for huge penalties. Rather, authority ought to have asked the driver to reroute the vehicle to the place of supply.
5. Jeyyam Global Foods Pvt Ltd versus UOI
Case: Detention of goods can’t extend beyond a reasonable time period.
Judgement: It isn’t available to the assessing squad officers to detain goods beyond a reasonable time period and make a move against it.
Remarks: Assessing Squad officer raised the issue of the wrong classification of goods. Further, for such offence raised a detention notice and collected tax along with the penalty.
Squad officer can detain the goods to prepare papers with respect to any issue included like the wrong classification of goods. So to hand over the papers to the jurisdictional evaluating officer that is eligible to take the final action.