Page 22 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

xx GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 not applicable — Gateway Hotels v.
Commissioner of Customs, C. Ex. & S.T., Cochin (Tri. - Bang.)................. 210
Retrospective exemption to Works Contract under Notification No. 9/2016-
S.T., scope of admissibility - See under WORKS CONTRACT .......... 177
Revision of FORM GST TRAN-1 permissible when it was wrongly filed due
to technical difficulties in portal - See under INPUT TAX CREDIT (ITC) .... 160
Road Construction Tender, bid cannot be rejected only on the ground of not
mentioning rate of GST separately in Tender in absence of any column
for this - See under TENDER FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION .......... 148
Roads constructed inside residential complex, exemption from Service Tax
admissible - See under CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS .............. 231
Seafarers supplied to foreign agency, refund admissible as supplying
Seafarers to foreign party is not intermediary service but Manpower
Recruitment or Supply Agency service - See under REFUND/REFUND
CLAIM ........................................ 182
Sealing of premises during search - Reasons for sealing, sufficiency thereof -
Sealing of premises by stopping search mid-way cannot be done on the
grounds of ITC wrongly availed; tax collected but not deposited; tried to
neglect search team; non-cooperation or business premises found closed
without presence of authorized person - Department ought to have
proceed further in accordance with law instead of sealing of godown -
Section 67 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of
Constitution of India — Anopsinh Kiritsinh Sarvaiya v. State of Gujarat (Guj.) ...... 171
— of premises under GST, scope of - See under INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTE ...................................... 171
— of rented premises under GST, continuous sealing not sustainable - See
under SEARCH AND SEIZURE .......................... 171
— under GST - Desealing of rented premises - Ownership of rented premises
not relevant - GST authorities should not be concerned with contractual
relationship between owner of premises with that of Tenant dealer in
their action against dealer - Action of authorities is towards goods kept
by dealers - Accordingly although at time of desealing, petitioner may be
present with ownership documents/rent agreement, authorities cannot
insist on these documents - Section 67 of Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Anopsinh Kiritsinh Sarvaiya
v. State of Gujarat (Guj.) ................................. 171
Search and seizure under GST - Sealing of rented premises - Continuous
sealing not sustainable - GST authorities leaving search proceedings mid-
way by resorting to sealing of rented Godown of dealers by mentioning
on Sealing Memos grounds such as ITC wrongly availed or tax collected
but not deposited or neglect of search team or non-cooperation or
business premises found closed without presence of authorized person,
etc. and then taking no further action for long time of more than a year -
Reasons mentioned above cannot be a ground for not taking any further
action post-sealing of godown reportedly given on rent to five different
dealers by petitioner-owner against whom there is no allegation of any
sort - Department ought to have proceed further in accordance with law
instead of continuance sealing of godown - If there were reasons to
believe that goods were liable to confiscation, it should have been done
long back - Accordingly, departmental officers directed to visit said

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  22