Page 8 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4
P. 8

vi                            GST LAW TIMES                      [ Vol. 34
                                        “Preparation of a kind used in Animal Feeding-Bio Processed Meal” not
                                        entitled claim nil rate of duty under as per Notification No. 2/2017-C.T.
                                        (Rate) and corresponding notification issued under State legislation — In
                                        Re : Vippy Industries Ltd. (A.A.R. - GST - M.P.) ....................... 664
                                     Appeal to Appellate Authority  - Dismissal thereof for non-compliance of
                                        pre-deposit order - Delay in filing second appeal leading to its dismissal -
                                        Restoration on cost - Appellant-assessee pleading that he was under bona
                                        fide belief that preliminary appeal filed before Tribunal against order of
                                        Commissioner (Appeals) declining to grant unconditional stay would be
                                        listed first which resulted in delay of 812 days in filing main appeal
                                        before Tribunal -  Notwithstanding controversy as to whether said
                                        preliminary appeal was filed or not, since meanwhile entire due amount
                                        of tax and penalty has been recovered from appellant, interest of justice
                                        demands that case now be decided on merits - Accordingly, impugned
                                        orders are quashed and appeal restored before Commissioner (Appeals)
                                        for deciding it on merits subject to payment of cost of  ` 50,000 within
                                        three weeks by appellant - On failure to pay cost ibid, appeal shall not be
                                        restored - Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 — G. Mahesh Babu v. Commr. of Cus.,
                                        C. Ex. & S.T. (Appeals II & VI) (S.C.) ........................... 577
                                     Attachment of Bank Account  - Power for provisional  attachment of bank
                                        account - It is not absolute - Expression “is of opinion” or “has reason to
                                        believe” indicates that subjective satisfaction of Commissioner depends
                                        on facts and circumstances of each case - “Opinion” must have rational
                                        connection with or relevant bearing on formation of opinion - Rational
                                        connection requires direct nexus/live link between protection of interest
                                        and available property which might not be available at time of recovery
                                        of taxes after final adjudication of dispute - “Opinion” must be formed in
                                        good faith and not be  mere pretence -  Courts can determine whether
                                        formation of opinion is arbitrary, capricious or whimsical - “Necessary”
                                        requires that order and record indicating that it was necessary to take
                                        drastic action of attachment - Section 83 of Central Goods and Services
                                        Tax Act, 2017 — Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Dir. Gen., Directorate Gen. of GST
                                        Intelligence (P & H) ................................... 592
                                     — Power of provisional attachment - It is drastic and far-reaching power that
                                        must  be used sparingly  and only on substantive weighty grounds and
                                        reasons - It should be exercised only to protect interest of revenue and
                                        not to ruin business of any taxable person - Section 83 of Central Goods
                                        and Services  Tax Act, 2017 —  Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd.  v. Addl. Dir. Gen.,
                                        Directorate Gen. of GST Intelligence (P & H) ........................ 592
                                     Auction of flowers - Assessee undertaking complete process of auction of
                                        flowers and  upon completion of auction receiving sale consideration -
                                        Consideration paid by assessee to seller after deducting its commission -
                                        Assessee offering dealers sophisticated facilities for online buying-remote
                                        buying to attract an increasing number of international buyers to auction
                                        - Wide gamut of activities of assessee  beyond scope of a  commission
                                        agent since services rendered by it not restricted only to sale of goods on
                                        behalf of sellers for consideration, which was main edifice of definition of
                                        commission agent - Assessee’s activities more appropriately classifiable
                                        as ‘Auctioneer service’ -  Activity  not  covered by Serial No. 54(g) of
                                        Notification  No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate)  as “services provided by a
                                        commission agent for sale or purchase of agricultural produce” even
                                        though its covered under Section 2(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax
                                                          GST LAW TIMES      26th March 2020      104
   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13