Britannia Industries Limited VS Union Of India

The petitioner, M/s Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd., a registered business under GST in Chhattisgarh, is engaged in import and export activities through various ports in India, including Paradip Port in Odisha. The petitioner had received intra-State invoices from Paradip Port Trust (PPT) for certain taxable services and sought inter-State invoices instead. After a directive from the High Court of Delhi, the petitioner approached the jurisdictional GST Commissioner, resulting in a representation submitted to the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, advising PPT to issue inter-State IGST invoices to the petitioner.

Subsequently, the issue was resolved by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), and it was emphasized that the petitioner should address the matter directly with PPT based on CBIC’s circular and advice. Despite these directives, the petitioner faced delays and challenges in rectifying the invoices issued by PPT.

In another instance, the petitioner, a distributor of home appliances, filed a petition aggrieved by a detention notice under the GST Act while transporting goods. The detention was due to discrepancies in the serial numbers of the tax invoices accompanying the goods. The Government Pleader cited Rule 46(1)(b) of the GST Rules, arguing that the invoices did not comply with the requirement of consecutive serial numbers, justifying the detention.

Upon considering the arguments, the court observed that the power to detain a vehicle during transit is specified in Section 129 of the GST Act and applies to cases where goods are transported in contravention of provisions. However, the court noted that the detaining authority’s action should be justified and proportional to the alleged violation. After reviewing the submissions, the court directed the respondents to comply with CBIC’s clarification and amend the petitioner’s invoices accordingly within eight weeks.

In a separate petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought refunds of unutilized IGST credit and challenged the rejection of a refund order by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST, Mundra Division. The petitioner requested the court to issue appropriate writs directing the respondents to act upon or grant the requested refunds.

Overall, the court’s directives and decisions in both cases aim to ensure compliance with GST regulations, address grievances of the petitioners, and uphold their rights under the law.

The petitioner, M/s Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd., registered under GST in Chhattisgarh, engages in import and export business through various ports, including Paradip Port in Odisha. They sought inter-State invoices from Paradip Port Trust (PPT) for certain taxable services but were issued intra-State invoices. The Delhi High Court directed them to approach the jurisdictional GST Commissioner, leading to a representation submitted to the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, who advised PPT to issue inter-State IGST invoices.

The issue appeared to be resolved by the CBIC, and the petitioner was advised to address it directly with PPT. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, resulting in a clarification issued to PPT by the Commissionerate of CT & GST, Odisha, advising them to treat the supply of services to the petitioner as interstate and realize IGST instead of CGST and SGST. This advice was reiterated to the GST Council Commissioner in New Delhi, leading to a clarification by the CBIC on June 28, 2019.

The counsel for PPT stated that they would follow the CBIC’s guidance. Therefore, the court directed PPT to comply with the CBIC’s clarification issued on June 28, 2019, amending all invoices from July 2017 onwards to levy 18% IGST instead of 9% CGST and 9% SGST within eight weeks.

In another case, the petitioner, a distributor of home appliances, challenged a detention notice under the GST Act issued while transporting goods from Kottayam to Thiruvananthapuram. The notice cited inconsistencies in the invoices accompanying the goods. The petitioner argued that the Revised Invoice Rules, 2017, were irrelevant to the case.

The Government Pleader referred to Rule 46(1)(b) of the GST Rules, stating that the invoices did not conform to the required format, justifying the detention. The court, however, emphasized that the power to detain a vehicle in transit is specified in Section 129 of the GST Act and applies when goods are transported in contravention of the Act or Rules. It noted that while the tax invoices didn’t conform to Rule 46, the detention couldn’t be deemed unjustified solely based on this ground.

In another petition, the petitioner, a company situated in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), sought a refund of unutilized IGST credit distributed by Input Service Distributor (ISD). They filed an application for refund but faced rejection. The petition sought various reliefs, including a writ of mandamus for the grant of refund and framing rules for SEZ refund to ensure parity.

The petition involves M/s Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd., a business entity registered under GST in Chhattisgarh, engaged in import and export through various Indian ports including Paradip Port in Odisha. The issue arose when the Paradip Port Trust (PPT) issued intra-state invoices for taxable services supplied to the petitioner, who sought inter-state invoices. After legal proceedings and directives from the High Court of Delhi and the Commissionerate of CT & GST, Odisha, advising PPT to issue inter-state invoices, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) also provided clarifications on the matter.

In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking compliance from PPT regarding the issuance of inter-state invoices in line with CBIC directives. The court, considering the past directives and clarifications, directed PPT to amend all petitioner invoices from July 2017 onwards to incorporate 18% IGST instead of 9% CGST and 9% SGST within eight weeks, manually if necessary.

Another case involves a petitioner, a distributor of home appliances, aggrieved by a detention notice under the GST Act. The notice stemmed from inconsistencies in tax invoices accompanying transported goods. While the government argued non-conformity with GST rules justified detention, the petitioner contended the detention was unjustified.

Upon review, the court observed the power to detain vehicles during transit specified in Section 129 of the GST Act and noted that the detained vehicle must adhere to Section 68 and Rule 138 of the GST Act. The court directed a rule to be returnable forthwith and further proceedings in light of the petitioner’s arguments and the government’s responses.

Additionally, a petition for a refund of unutilized IGST credit was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, situated in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), sought relief for IGST credit distributed by the Input Service Distributor (ISD) but remaining unutilized. The court noted the petitioner’s contention and directed further proceedings to address the refund request.

These cases illustrate the legal intricacies and challenges faced by businesses regarding GST compliance and refund processes, highlighting the importance of judicial review in ensuring fair and efficient implementation of tax laws.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: