Page 21 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] INDEX - 18th June, 2020 xix
audience given in resolution proceedings to operational creditors viz.
Central Government or State Government as the case may be -
Evaluation of all dues and liabilities as they exist on the date of
finalization of the resolution plan left in the exclusive domain of the
resolution professional with the approval of the Committee of Creditors
(COC) - Resolution plan approved by the COC binding on the
Department - Approved resolution plan affirmed by NCLAT and
thereafter by Supreme Court - As per the resolution plan, rights of the
respondent GST Department secured to the extent of ` 72 crores odd and
already deposited by petitioner - Demand raised by respondent for the
period prior to the date on which, petitioner-company took over the
company under liquidation, i.e., Binani Cement Ltd. after the resolution
plan was finalized and approved, totally illegal - Section 31 of Insolvency
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. v. Union of India (Raj.) . . 289
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM :
— Condition that Cenvat credit availed on inputs be reversed while filing
returns - No provision in ACES system to debit value of refund - Credit
carried forward in TRAN-1 reversed by assessee in its GSTR-3B -
Assessee entitled to refund - Section 142 of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 — Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Gurugram
(Tri. - Chan.) ...................................... 330
— of Service Tax - Construction and maintenance of roads under Road
Construction Department - Assessee aggrieved by continuous deductions
of Service Tax from bills despite general exemption granted vide
Notification No. 12/2012-S.T. - HELD : Respondents unable to justify
action as to under what authority of law deduction of Service Tax being
made - Well settled law that under Article 265 of Constitution of India no
tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law - State having
no authority to collect Service Tax not at all leviable under law -
Concerned respondents directed to refund entire amount of Service Tax
deducted from bills after issuance of aforesaid Notification - Respondents
further restrained from collecting any such tax from bills of petitioners or
any other contractors in future so long as said exemption remains in
operation - Article 265 of Constitution of India — Rishi Builders India Pvt. Ltd.
v. State of Bihar (Pat.) .................................. 303
— of unutilised Cenvat/ITC - Refund claim although filed under Rule 5 of
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but filed after the appointed day - Refund
claim to be decided under provisions of Central Excise law read with
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and not under GST law more particularly
when transitional provisions, i.e., Section 142(3) of Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 makes it mandatory on the authority to dispose
such claim in accordance with the provisions of existing law - Rule 117 of
Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 applied in
processing/deciding the claim by the impugned authority is faulty -
Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to scrutinize the claim in
accordance with the provisions of Central Excise law read with Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004 — In Re : Umberto Ceramics International Pvt. Ltd. (Commr. Appl. -
GST - Guj.) ....................................... 354
— of unutilised credit - Appellant unable to debit their ITC Ledger through
FORM GST DRC-03 because of error in system, GST common portal not
allowing to debit the amount from their available balance in ITC ledger
and for this they made several complaints at various appropriate
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  21