GST Legal Cases and Case Laws in India – Page 4

gst case law image

23. Case of Apollo Screens Pvt Ltd Vs UOI reported in 2018-TIOL-1831-HC-AHM-ST Issue in brief

Prayer of Petitioner was for a direction to respondents to allow them to carry forward balance CENVAT Credit available – Rule 117 of CGST Rules laid down the time limit for filing return and making a declaration for unused CENVAT Credit – Lastly, it was extended till 27.12.2017.

Admittedly, the petitioner did not file the return which was to be done electronically till such date – The petitioner’s first communication was on 27.04.2018, in which, the petitioner conveyed to departmental authorities that due to portal errors, they could not file the necessary declarations

The normal conduct if the attempt was made but failed, would have been to approach the Nodal Officer or grievance cell of the department during the currency of time limit for filing the return

The High Court held that In absence of any other material suggesting a genuine honest attempt on the part of the petitioner to file the return electronically, the same having failed on account of portal error or some such technical error attributable to the department, it would not be possible to extend the time limit for the petitioner.

24. Case of Raj Sanjaybhai Tanna Vs UOI reported in 2018-TIOL-113-HC-AHM-GST Issue in brief

Petitioners, a practicing Advocate, and a Tax Consultant challenging the constitutional validity of Section 47 of the CGST Act, claiming that the government is trying to recover the penalty in the guise of late fee charges and, therefore, the dealers lost their valuable right to file appeals as well as the right to explain the cause of delay in filing an appeal; that in all previous laws which have been repealed by the statutes enacted under the new GST regime, such charges were categorized as penal in nature

The High Court while dismissing the petition held that there is no reason why such an issue should be examined in a public interest petition when the group of persons whom the statute affects does not suffer from any handicap preventing them from taking up the litigation themselves and pursuing it.

<<Previous page– ..Next page