|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 15124 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 1443
Receipt of consideration by the developer as per N/N. 04/2018-CT (Rate) dt.25.01.2018 or not - transfer of land or transfer of 'development rights' to the developer by the landowner - Whether the liability to pay GST or service tax as applicable arises on the developer immediately on receipt of development rights or immediately on conveyance of the flats to be constructed by way of an allotment letter?
Whether GST is applicable when consideration for the service was received prior to enactment of CGST Act, 2017 in the light of clause (b) of Section 142 (11) of GST Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- The appellant is of opinion that since the JDA was entered on 01.01.2016 i.e., before introduction of GST, TDR attracts service tax for transfer of land by the appellant to the builder for the purpose of construction (para 14.3 of their appeal). It is observed that Advance Ruling Authority or Appellate Authority are constituted under the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 to provide clarification on matters under GST Act and Rules made thereunder. Section 97 (2) of the Chapter XVII provides for spectrum of issues on which the advance ruling can be sought for under the Act. Neither the Advance Ruling Authority nor this Appellate Authority have any jurisdiction to decide on the taxability under Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the attempt of the appellant to seek a ruling to the effect that, in the facts of this case, the supply of TDR attracted Service Tax cannot be countenanced.
Whether GST is required to be paid when the developer has paid GST on the entire value of construction complex including the cost incurred for construction of flats to the landowner appellant? - HELD THAT:- The appellant has raised a query which is not posed before the Advance Ruling Authority. In terms of Section 101 (1) of CGST Act, 2017, the Appellate Authority can, after giving the parties to the appeal or reference an opportunity of being heard, pass such order as it thinks fit, confirming or modifying the ruling appealed against or referred to. Further, it is not open to the appellant to introduce new grounds in an appeal when admittedly these grounds were not raised before the original authority.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Commissioner of Cust & C Ex, Goa vs Dempo Engineering Works Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 961 - SUPREME COURT], held that Tribunal cannot allow an appeal on new grounds when the same were neither raised in reply to the show cause notice nor were argued before the Adjudicating Authority - Thus, when a question is not raised before the Advance Ruling Authority, the Appellate Authority cannot entertain the same in appeal.
Conclusion - i) The transfer of development rights is considered as receipt of consideration by the developer. ii) GST liability arises at the time of transfer of possession or rights in the constructed property, not at the time of receipt of development rights.
The appeal is dismissed and the impugned ruling of Advance Ruling Authority is upheld.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1442
Seeking grant of bail - availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraudulently - issuance of fake tax invoices of Copper Scrap to various manufacturer - HELD THAT:- The intention of the accused is of having transactions without actual supply of goods, for claiming input tax credit (ITC) and for the aforesaid purpose fake invoices and bills were prepared. Thus the applicant/accused Chandan Sharma appears to be the mastermind in defrauding the Government exchequer by availing and utilizing ineligible ITC of GST without any concomitant supply of goods and also by creating and operating firms which are not owned by him.
The offence in the present is affecting the public interest at large - The present case relates to economic offences. Such offence like large scale fraud, money laundering and corruption, are often viewed seriously because they affect the economic fabric of the society. The Courts may deny bail in such cases especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power.
The present case is a grave economic offence. The total GST evasion has so far workout amounts to Rs. 59,00,98,178/-. The investigation is under progress. The applicant if released on bail will definitely try to destroy the evidence and influence the witnesses and there is his high flight risk considering his role. Considering these facts, as well as gravity of the offence, it would not be proper to enlarge him on bail at this stage. The bail application, preferred by the applicant is liable to be rejected at this stage.
Conclusion - i) Chandan Sharma is the mastermind behind the fraudulent operation of multiple firms, leading to significant ITC fraud. ii) The procedural requirements under Section 69 of the CGST Act were duly followed in the arrest of Chandan Sharma.
First regular bail application of Chandan Sharma son of Shri Bhramdutt sharma, u/s 132 (1) (c), 132 (1) (b), 132 (1) (i) of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 D.G.G.I, Ghaziabad, Meerut Commissionerate, is hereby dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1395
Denial of Input tax credit - expiry of the period prescribed under Sections 37(3) and 39(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is accepted by the Revenue that there is a clerical/arithmetical mistake which is not being permitted to be corrected. Invariably, such mistakes come to the notice of the seller, who has to fill up the online form(s), etc., after the input tax credit is denied to the purchaser(s).
Re-list in the week commencing 28.04.2025.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1394
Seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant - respondent/Union of India submitted that the case of the Gautam Garg cannot be equated with the present case as the present appellant is the main accused and proprietor of the two firms and an operator in another firm - HELD THAT:- The case for bail is made out.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1393
Challenge to order of provisional attachment of bank account of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The final order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, if ultimately challenged shall be looked into on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the High Court in its impugned order.
This Court in M/s Radha Krishan Industries versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., [2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT], has categorically said that once the final order is passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, the provisional attachment comes to an end.
SLP disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1392
Challenge to ex-parte demand order and SCN - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- This subject matter is covered by the judgment and order in M/s Anita Traders Lko. U.P. Thru Proprietor Aneeta Sharma vs. State of U.P. and another [2025 (2) TMI 466 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'As would be apparent from a reading of the said order, the due date for filing annual return in the case of financial year 2017-18 was 31.12.2018, however, this due date was extended by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Customs vide notification dated 03.02.2018, to 05.02.2020 and this notification was adopted by the State of U.P. vide notification dated 05.02.2020. Based on this notification, the period of three years mentioned in Sub Section 10 of Section 73 would end on 05.02.2023 meaning thereby, an order under Sub Section 9 of Section 73 for the financial year 2017-18 could have been passed by 05.02.2023 but not after it.'
It has been held in the said judgment that an order under sub-Section 9 of Section 73 pertaining to financial year 2017-18 could have been passed by 05.02.2023 but not thereafter. The notification dated 24.04.2023 has been considered and the contention that such an order could have been passed til 31.03.2023 has been repelled for the reasons given therein. Now, in the case at hand the order under sub-Section 9 of Section 73 has been passed on 14.12.2023, therefore, it is clearly time barred.
Conclusion - The impugned orders are beyond the time limit prescribed under sub Section 10 of Section 73 as applicable for the financial year 2017-18 and therefore the impugned orders are beyond jurisdiction being barred by the time provided in the said provision.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1391
Violation of principles of natural justice - Challenge to assessment order and the consequent rectification order passed by the respondent - petitioner's consultant failed to file an appeal, within the limitation period - HELD THAT:- In the present case, initially ASMT 10 notice dated 04.01.2022 was issued to the petitioner for which the petitioner submitted its reply on 07.04.2022. Thereafter, for the very same issue and assessment year another ASMT 10 notice was issued on 09.10.2023. Thereafter pre show cause notice dated 11.12.2023 followed by show cause notice dated 16.12.2023 was issued to the petitioner, for which the petitioner vide reply dated 16.01.2024 and 28.02.2024 sought for adjournment for filing detailed reply along with supporting documents and also personal hearing. But, the respondent herein without considering the same has passed the impugned assessment order.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner when the respondent intend to drop the proceedings, based on the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice, they can very well do so. But, when they intend to pass orders confirming the demand for the other issue, they ought to have provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
In the case on hand, the impugned order came to be passed without sufficient opportunities to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice and it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned assessment order as well as the rectification order passed by the respondent.
The orders impugned herein are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1390
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - involvement in financial misconduct and the subsequent impact on the State Exchequer - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner has not caused any loss to the State Exchequer as he has been filing GST returns on time, with the purchases made by him and his firm accurately reflected in the vendor's GST R-1 Return, as well as in the GST 2-A and 3-B returns and all due taxes have been paid promptly and the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer concerned, as has been averred in para No.16 of the present petition, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail at this stage.
The petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1389
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - petitioner Municipal Board did not file returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the petitioner Municipal Board after 13.05.2022 has cleared all its dues under the GST Act and since then, has been depositing its dues under the GST Act regularly/monthly, the impugned order dated 17.10.2019 is set aside by making the interim order dated 13.05.2022, as suggested by Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST, absolute.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1388
Dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay of 285 days in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the notices were uploaded in the portal, but no hard copy was served on the petitioner, this Court feels that reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner for the delay. Therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal.
The delay of 285 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent is condoned and the order of the appellate authority/first respondent is set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1336
Challenge to assessment order - the proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned assessment order - HELD THAT:- The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), [2023 (2) TMI 1224 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa [2024 (7) TMI 1512 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST, issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings.
In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature of the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1335
Cancellation of GST Registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax - it is contended that manner in which the GST Registration has been cancelled is arbitrary and the impugned Order of cancellation has been passed without due application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned Order, it is evidently clear that the impugned Order is not in conformity with the procedure prescribed in FORM GST REG-19. A speaking order is one which expressly states the reasons for the decision. In other words, a speaking order speaks for itself by assigning the reasons behind the conclusion. If an order is passed without giving a reason by the concerned authority, then the order is a non-speaking one. Non-speaking order is one which does not provide a clear reason for its decision. The fact that the petitioner-assessee did not submit any Reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 15.01.2023 or did not appear before the Proper Officer, when he was called upon to do so, does not absolve the Proper Officer from the obligation of passing a speaking order as any order which brings adverse consequence to a person cannot be a mere paper formality.
A submission has been made that the writ petition has been preferred with delay as the petitioner has filed the writ petition in February, 2025, that is, after about one year from the order of cancellation of registration. Although the petitioner has not approached the Court immediately after the order of cancellation of registration, this Court is of the considered view that when the extent of vulnerability of the order of cancellation of registration is due to not meeting the statutory prescription of recording reasons is pitted against the delayed approach, the vulnerability of the order of cancellation of registration would far outweigh the delayed approach because of its likely adverse affect on a registered person like the petitioner.
It is open for the petitioner-assessee to submit a Reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 15.01.2023 showing reason[s] as to why the GST Registration should not be cancelled in terms of sub-rule [2] of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules read with Section 29 [2] [c] of the CGST Act. In the alternative, the petitioner-assessee, at the time of and/or instead of replying to the Show Cause Notice served under sub-rule [1] of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, can furnish all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues along with the applicable interest, late fee and penalty, if any. It is, therefore, observed that it would be open for the petitioner-assessee to avail either of the two options.
Conclusion - The impugned cancellation order quashed due to its procedural deficiencies and lack of reasoning. The matterias reverted to the stage of issuance of the show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to respond or comply with the requirements for revocation of cancellation.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1334
Cancellation of GST registration of petiiton without due application of mind - violation of princuples of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned Order, it is evidently clear that the impugned Order is not in conformity with the procedure prescribed in FORM GST REG-19. A speaking order is one which expressly states the reasons for the decision. In other words, a speaking order speaks for itself by assigning the reasons behind the conclusion. If an order is passed without giving a reason by the concerned authority, then the order is a non-speaking one. Non-speaking order is one which does not provide a clear reason for its decision. The fact that the petitioner-assessee did not submit any Reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 14.11.2023 or did not appear before the Proper Officer, when he was called upon to do so, does not absolve the Proper Officer from the obligation of passing a speaking order as any order which brings adverse consequence to a person cannot be a mere paper formality.
A submission has been made that the writ petition has been preferred with delay as the petitioner has filed the writ petition in February, 2025, that is, after about one year from the order of cancellation of registration dated 05.02.2024. Although the petitioner has not approached the Court immediately after the order of cancellation of registration, this Court is of the considered view that when the extent of vulnerability of the order of cancellation of registration is due to not meeting the statutory prescription of recording reasons is pitted against the delayed approach, the vulnerability of the order of cancellation of registration would far outweigh the delayed approach because of its likely adverse affect on a registered person like the petitioner.
It is open for the petitioner-assessee to submit a Reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 14.11.2023 showing reason[s] as to why the GST Registration should not be cancelled in terms of sub-rule [2] of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules read with Section 29 [2] [c] of the CGST Act. In the alternative, the petitioner-assessee, at the time of and/or instead of replying to the Show Cause Notice served under sub-rule [1] of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, can furnish all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues along with the applicable interest, late fee and penalty, if any. It is, therefore, observed that it would be open for the petitioner-assessee to avail either of the two options. This Court, for ends of justice, deems it just and proper to grant a period of one month from today to the petitioner to avail either of the two permissible options.
Conclusion - The impugned cancellation order quashed due to its procedural deficiencies and lack of reasoning. The matterias reverted to the stage of issuance of the show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to respond or comply with the requirements for revocation of cancellation.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1333
Cancellation of GST Registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax - it is contended that manner in which the GST Registration has been cancelled is arbitrary and the impugned Order of cancellation has been passed without due application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned Order, it is evidently clear that the impugned Order is not in conformity with the procedure prescribed in FORM GST REG-19. A speaking order is one which expressly states the reasons for the decision. In other words, a speaking order speaks for itself by assigning the reasons behind the conclusion. If an order is passed without giving a reason by the concerned authority, then the order is a non-speaking one. Non-speaking order is one which does not provide a clear reason for its decision. The fact that the petitioner-assessee did not submit any Reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 11.10.2023 or did not appear before the Proper Officer, when he was called upon to do so, does not absolve the Proper Officer from the obligation of passing a speaking order as any order which brings adverse consequence to a person cannot be a mere paper formality.
A submission has been made that the writ petition has been preferred with delay as the petitioner has filed the writ petition in February, 2025, that is, after about one year from the order of cancellation of registration. Although the petitioner has not approached the Court immediately after the order of cancellation of registration, this Court is of the considered view that when the extent of vulnerability of the order of cancellation of registration is due to not meeting the statutory prescription of recording reasons is pitted against the delayed approach, the vulnerability of the order of cancellation of registration would far outweigh the delayed approach because of its likely adverse affect on a registered person like the petitioner.
It is open for the petitioner-assessee to submit a Reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 11.10.2023 showing reason[s] as to why the GST Registration should not be cancelled in terms of sub-rule [2] of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules read with Section 29 [2] [c] of the CGST Act. In the alternative, the petitioner-assessee, at the time of and/or instead of replying to the Show Cause Notice served under sub-rule [1] of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, can furnish all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues along with the applicable interest, late fee and penalty, if any. It is, therefore, observed that it would be open for the petitioner-assessee to avail either of the two options.
Conclusion - The impugned cancellation order quashed due to its procedural deficiencies and lack of reasoning. The matterias reverted to the stage of issuance of the show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to respond or comply with the requirements for revocation of cancellation.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1332
Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, due to an inverted tax structure - Works contract or supply of services - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the very same petitioner, under identical circumstances in M/S. ITD CEMINDIA JV VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) 5 BANGALORE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (LGSTO), BANGALORE [2024 (8) TMI 1538 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that 'the impugned orders passed by the respondents deserve to be set aside and the refund claim of the petitioner deserves to be allowed with a direction to the respondents to make the refund together with applicable interest within a stipulated timeframe.'
The aforesaid order passed by this Court in relation to the very same petitioner is directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also and consequently the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
Conclusion - The respondents are directed to consider the subject refund claims / applications of the petitioner and make payment together with applicable interest to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The impugne dorder is quashed - petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1331
Cancellation of GST registration - respondents have failed to assign any valid reason justifying the action of cancellation - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As is manifest from the original order of cancellation of registration as well as the order in terms of which the application for revocation has come to be rejected, the respondents have failed to assign any valid reason justifying the action of cancellation. The orders are thus liable to be quashed and set aside on this short score alone.
Additionally, it is noted that the original order of cancelling the registration of writ petitioner was ordained to come into effect from a retrospective date of 03 August 2017. The original SCN did not bear any intent to cancel the registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect.
Conclusion - The rejection of the revocation application without a hearing violated Section 30 of the CGST Act and principles of natural justice, leading to the quashing of the order.
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned SCN dated 02 February 2023, the order-in-appeal dated 04 October 2024, the original order for cancellation of registration dated 02 February 2023 as well as the order dated 14 May 2024 in terms of which the application for revocation has come to be rejected, are hereby quashed and set aside.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1330
Levy of GST - rent received by the appellant from the Government Social Welfare College Boys Hostel (Govt SWCBH) - time limitation for filing appeal - HELD THAT:- This appeal has been filed with a delay of 22 days. It is contended by the appellant that the order impugned herein was not received by them by mail, message or any type of communication. However, it is observed that the said order was communicated to the appellant by email on 12.02.2024, inter-alia, at the email id [email protected]. It is further observed that in the Application Form for Advance Ruling (Form GST ARA-01), the same email id has been mentioned. Hence, it is incorrect of the appellant to submit that they had not received the Order of AAR, in time, leading to delay. In terms of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Appellate Authority may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the normal limitation period of 30 days, allow it to be presented within a further period not exceeding 30 days.
In the present case, only cause for delay is stated to be that the appellant came to know about the order after 30 days time limit had expired. However, the Order dated 09.02.2024 was communicated to the appellant herein on 12.02.2024 and as such the appeal should have been filed by 13.03.2024. No valid reasons for delay beyond 13.03.2024 are forthcoming. Hence, the present appeal is liable to be rejected as time barred.
The appeal is rejected as barred by limitation.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1329
Levy of GST - sale of developed plots by applicant to various customers after development - development of plots' service provided to the land owners - transfer of development rights by the land owner in consideration of land development services received - determination of value of supply of such services for payment of GST - GST on Transfer of development rights - If tax is payable on TDRs on RCM basis and on development service, what is the time of payment and what is the applicable Notification.
HELD THAT:- In the instant case, no ruling has been passed by the AAR in respect of three questions. As such advance ruling against which the appeal is filed is incomplete. Further, the questions raised for advance ruling are interlinked. Therefore, appeal in respect of rulings on answered questions cannot also be effectively decided unless the rulings in respect of remaining questions are available. In view of this, this appeal is not maintainable. Though Section 101 of CGST Act, 2017 does not contain any provision to remand the matter, considering the fact that the lower authority has not passed a ruling on some of the questions raised by the appellant, it is constrained to remand the matter back to the lower authority to pronounce a ruling to meet the ends of the justice.
The order of the lower authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Advance Ruling Authority for consideration afresh.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1328
Requirement to reverse Input Tax Credit availed on inputs consumed in the manufacture of finished goods viz. Steel Nails that were got destroyed in fire accident - HELD THAT:- On a combined reading of Section 2 and Section 16 of SGST Act, 2017, it can be construed that the definition of input tax is very wide and a registered person is entitled to take input tax credit on inputs, input services and capital goods if the same are used by him in course or furtherance of his business or the registered person has an intention to use such inputs, input services or capital goods in the course or furtherance of his business at the time of procurement of such goods/ services.
On a plain reading of sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act, it is clear that ITC shall not be available in respect of goods lost, stolen, destroyed or written off. Further, the use of non- obstante clause makes it evident that the provisions of Section 17 (5) have an overriding effect over the provisions of Section 16 (1) & Section 18 (1). As such, the averments made by the appellant with reference to Section 16 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 do not merit consideration.
Conclusion - The appellant to reverse the ITC availed on inputs used in the manufacture of the destroyed finished goods.
The impugned Order of Advance Ruling Authority is upheld.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1317
Dismissal of appeal on the basis that the Appeal has not been signed by the authorized signatory and the Appellant (the Petitioner herein) has not submitted a Board Resolution appointing the said person as the authorized signatory to sign the Appeals, documents or any other proof of her being the authorized signatory of the Appellant - HELD THAT:- If the Appellate Authority wanted to verify the authority of Ms. Gracie Fernandes, it was his duty to call upon the Appellant, if he had any doubts with regard to the authority. In fact from the record we find that there is a Board Resolution authorizing Ms. Gracie Fernandes, inter alia to institute, depose, defend, compromise, appear, verify, sign, affirm and/or present papers, applications, petitions, affidavits and other documents under the applicable laws before the High Court, Supreme Court, Goods and Services Tax Authorities and Appellate Tribunal, Advance Ruling Authorities of the Goods and Services Tax etc. This Board Resolution can be found at Exhibit-H to the Petition. When all this was brought to the notice of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent, he fairly stated that the impugned order could be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded for a denovo consideration.
Conclusion - The Appellate Authority must issue a reasoned order addressing all submissions and provide a list of any relied-upon judgments or orders, including unreported ones, to the petitioner.
The impugned order dated 30th July 2024 is set aside - petition allowed by way of remand.
........
|
9911796707
