CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017

Facts: The Respondent Bank issued a Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies which directed the entities regulated by RBI not to deal with settling virtual currencies and to exit the relationship, if they already have one, with such settling virtual currencies. same to the said Statement, RBI again issued a circular directing the entities regulated by RBI not to deal in virtual currencies nor to provide services for facilitating any person or entity in settling virtual currencies and to exit the relationship with such persons or entities, if they were already providing such services to them. The Petitioner challenging the said Statement and Circular and seeking a direction to the Respondents not to restrict banks and financial institutions regulated by RBI, from providing access to the banking services, to those engaged in transactions in crypto assets.

Held: The activities carried on by the Petitioner were not declared as unlawful thus RBI is obliged to direct the Central Bank of India to defreeze the account to release the funds lying in the account to the company together with interest at the rate applicable.

Facts: The High Court filed a writ petition challenging validity of the Goods and Services Tax for compensation to States, after that the Division Bench passed a partial ad interim order providing that additional levy on the stocks of coal on which writ Petitioner had already paid Clean Energy Cess and so he shall not be required to make any further payment. However, on stocks of coal on which no Clean Energy Cess was paid any payment in terms of the impugned Act would be subject to the result of the writ petition.

Held: The claim of the Petitioner that he is entitled for set off in payment of Compensation to States Cess to the extent he had already paid Clean Energy Cess cannot be accepted. The Petitioner is not entitled for any set off of payments made towards Clean Energy Cess in payment of Compensations to States Cess.

Facts: Rojer Mathew filed petition assailing the final judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala. The Petitioner had originally approached the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of act which permits secured creditors to participate in auction of immoveable property if it remained unsold for want of reserve bid in an earlier auction. Rojer Mathew claimed that the aforementioned provision violated his rights, besides being in contravention of the Code of Civil Procedure which prohibits mortgagees from participating in auction of immovable property without prior Court permission.

Held: It is necessary to have such a Commission which is itself an independent body manned by honest and competent persons. This body is required to select those persons who specialised tribunals in terms of the law laid down in judgment of the High Court. it need persons who have grassroot experience and a judicious mix of judicial members and those with an independent outlook, integrity, character and good reputation and those who are totally free from the influence or pressure from the Government so that the people will have faith in the adjudicating mechanism of the tribunals.

Facts: The Maintainability of appeal exixts for the compliance with the pre-deposit and non-prosecution of the case. thus it was held that Issuing notice on condition that the petitioner shall deposit the credit on the file of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem, Tamil Nadu and failing which the special leave petition shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court.

Held: For a period of one week, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner in connection with the alleged offence and the interim protection will continue upon production of receipt in the Registry about the deposit made with the Department within one week from the date of order until the disposal of this Special Leave Petition.

Facts: The Petitioner Hardcastle Restaurants who serves various types of food and beverages items from its restaurants. The Petitioner is registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in ten States. After the commencement of GST Act till 14 November 2017, the services rendered by the Petitioner were subjected to 18% of GST. A notification was issued on 14 November 2017 reducing the rate of GST to 5% with effect from 15 November 2017. As a result, the Petitioner had to charge GST at 5% on the services rendered without availing impugned tax credit of the taxes paid on input services and capital goods. after that the complaint made on resturant for charging the rate of GST on restaurant services was reduced from 18% to 5%, the Petitioner had increased the prices of product sold, which was an act of illegal profiteering. The Standing Committee on Anti Profiteering examined the complaints. Thereafter as cncerned to the Anti-profiteering measure the question of Constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 exists for time limitation.

Held: The Act and Rules provide no appeal and the Authority can impose a penalty and can cancel the registration. In the event, the court remanded the case back to NAA while saying “the Authority is newly established,” and “as a guidance to this Authority, highlighting the importance of fair decision-making is necessary”. Therefore in the interests of a uniform and consistent view on the law, all the writ petitions should be transferred to the High Court of Delhi where earlier writ petitions are already pending.