The NDA Governments most significant contribution, the Goods and Services Tax successfully completed one year today. Within this short span of time, the GST law has been amended several times by the Government.
From the very beginning of the new indirect tax regime, there were a lot of changes in the policy decisions and concepts of GST. The Courts, on the other side, have also contributed to this changes. Also there were Advance Rulings which highlighted a lacuna in the current law.
Here are some of the significant rulings under the GST in the past one year.
A division bench of the High Court had interpreted the provisions of CGST and clarified that reverse charge mechanism (RCM) is applicable to legal services by advocates/ Firms under the GST. The Court also questioned the legal sanctity of the press release issued by the Ministry of Finance on 15th July, 2017 clarifying that RCM is applicable to legal services. However, recently, the Central Government issued a corrigendum and admitted this position.
M/s Kumar Traders and Company & Anr v. State of Assam & Ors
The Gauhati High Court restricted BIEO Officers from conducting search during GST Transition Period and directed the officers of the department not to put the dealers into any further harassment on account of the search and seizure made on July 27, 2017.
Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
A two-judge bench of the Bombay High Court asked the Government to resolve the technical glitches in the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) soon. While granting an interim relief to the petitioners, the Court also made a controversial comment that the GST regime is not ‘Tax-Friendly.’
M/s Ascics Trading Company v. State of Kerala & Anr
The Kerala High Court allowed releasing goods detained by the Commercial Tax Department, Kerala by stating that only the Central Government is vested with the right to prescribe documents which must be carried while transporting goods from one state to another under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act.
M/S Indus Towers Limited Vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer
The Kerala High Court, held that the power of detention contemplated under Section 129 of the SGST Act can be exercised only in respect of goods which are liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the SGST Act.
Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala
Kerala High Court granted interim relief to the petitioner and stayed VAT proceedings after the rollout of the Goods and Services Tax.
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors
The Supreme Court, in its first order on GST, directed that the buyer of the mineral purchased in the e-auction shall pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the sale value directly to the lessee, who is responsible for all compliances under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Bhumika Entreprises v. State of U.P & Ors
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the consignment need not be supported with the hard copy of the E-way Bill as the current Goods and Services Tax laws permits possession of digital copies. E-way bills can also be stored in electronic form on a mobile phone or another device.
AAR Ruling in Ms. Caltech Polymers Pvt. Ltd
AAR Kerala, has ruled that recovery of food expenses from the employees for the canteen services provided by company would come under the definition of ‘outward supply’ as defined in Section 2 (83) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and hence are taxable under the Goods and Services Tax laws.
M/s. Rashmi Hospitality Services Private Limited
Gujarat AAR held that the supply of service provided by the applicant is in nature of ‘ outdoor catering ’ and is liable to GST at the rate of 18%.
