Home Case Index All Cases GST This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

GST - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 13886 Records

• 2024 (12) TMI 64
  

  Cancellation of registration of petitioner - cancellation order does not refer any reason for cancelling the registration of the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The record shows that cancellation order has neither refer any violation of conditions mentioned under Section 29 (2) (a) to (e) of the GST Act nor reason has been mentioned for cancellation of registration of the petitioner. Further in the impugned order neither any reference whatsoever nor any finding was recorded to the effect of the material used against the petitioner nor any finding was recorded that the alleged material used against the petitioner was confronted with. In the absence of any such finding, the appellate order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

  This Court in APPARENT MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS [2022 (3) TMI 493 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] decided on 5.3.2022 has set aside the impugned order with liberty to the respondent authority to issue a notice in accordance with Section 29 (2) of the Act.

  The impugned orders dated 31.3.2022, 26.3.2021 and 16.12.2020 are hereby set aside - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 63
  

  Challenge to notifications dated 12 January 2017 - HELD THAT:- This Petition is disposed off by directing the concerned adjudicating authorities to dispose of notices issued to the Petitioner’s members following the law and on their own merits after considering their contentions based on this Court’s order in TATA MOTORS LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES & CUSTOMS. [2024 (10) TMI 1350 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS M/S MOHIT MINERALS PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR [2022 (5) TMI 968 - SUPREME COURT].

  The Petition is disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 62
  

  Detention and seizure of goods - State E-way Bill was not present at the time of interception - HELD THAT:- It is not a case of the respondent authority that at the time of interception of the goods in question, the Central E-way bill under the GST Act was not available. Only E-way Bill 01 under UP GST Act was not available with the goods in question however before passing of the penalty order, the same was produced.

  The issue in hand is not res integra - The issue in hand is squarely covers with the judgements of Division Bench of this Court in the cases of M/S GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, M/S GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., M/S. RAS POLYTEX PVT. LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, M/S. GAURANG PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., M/S. ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LTD., M/S. NAVYUG AIRCONDITIONING AND M/S. PROACTIVE PLAST PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 02 OTHERS AND STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS [2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and M/S VARUN BEVERAGES LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS [2021 (10) TMI 429 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT].

  Further during period from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the requirement of E-way Bill under UP GST Act read with the Rules framed thereunder was not enforceable. The goods in question was detained and seized on 18.03.2018 on the ground that E-way Bill 01-02 under UP GST Act was not accompanying with the goods. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that Central E-way Bill was not accompanying with the goods in question. Once the said fact is not disputed by the respondent authorities, neither the detention order nor the seizure order nor penalty was justified.

  The impugned orders dated 18.03.2018 and01.10.2020 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 61
  

  Invocation of jurisdiction of the Department u/s 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 should not be invoked against the petitioner in respect of the amounts raised in the show cause notices - HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials before the Court, at this stage let notice be issued, returnable in 2 weeks - Respondents may complete their instructions and file their counter affidavit in the meantime, if so advised - List on 09/12/2024.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 60
  

  Application for modification of the order - interest on the delay in payment of the GST amount from the due date of payment till actual realization as per the schedule applicable for delayed payment of GST as provided in the GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Once the petition has been allowed or dismissed, the order cannot be modified by filing an interlocutory application. This amounts to review of the order passed by this Court. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Court has granted the relief and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the relief, that cannot be a ground for modification of the order.

  Application is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 59
  

  Time limitation - dismissal of appeal on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal is not liable to be condoned under Section 107 (4) of the KGST Act - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the contentions put forth by both the learned counsels, without going into the question as to the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by the Appellate Authority refusing to condone the delay having regard to the order passed in the case of M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering Services2, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, relief sought for by the petitioner is liable to be granted in terms of the orders passed in the case of M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering Services2.

  The order dated 27.03.2024 bearing No. ACCT (Audit)-2/HPT/GST-ADJN/ORDER-2023/24/T for F.Y.2018-19 (Annexure–L1) passed by respondent No. 1 is set aside - writ petition is partly allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 58
  

  Challenge to assessment order - discrepancies between GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B and between the GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B - neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment have been served by tendering to the petitioner or by registered post, instead it was uploaded in the common portal - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

  The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 57
  

  Challenge to Order of Assessment and order passed in the Rectification Application - error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the order does not also indicate that there had been no error apparent on the record to reject the rectification. He had only extracted the tables indicating the figures which the petitioner is liable to pay. There is also no reasonings as to why there is no error apparent on the face of the record. For this reason, the impugned order dated 02.02.2024 is liable to be set aside.

  If pursuant to a Rectification Application, if a rectification is made and if it adversely affects the assessee, Proviso 3 contemplates an opportunity of hearing to be given. However, when an Rectification Application is made at the instance of assessee and the rectification is being sought to be rejected without considering the reasons for rectification or by giving reasons as to why such rectification could not be entertained. It is also imperative that the assessee to be put on notice.

  The order of rectification passed by the first respondent dated 02.02.2024 is contrary to the provisions of Section 161 and in that aspect, the same alone is set aside and the Rectification Application filed by the petitioner shall be taken afresh by the first respondent and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders and in accordance with law.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 56
  

  Rejection of Petitioner’s Appeal and Rectification Application on the ground that the board resolution filed along with the Appeal memo was defective - HELD THAT:- There is no serious defect based upon which the Appeal or the Rectification Application could have been rejected.

  Similar objections were made by the same officer rejecting about less than hundred matters on the alleged ground of defective resolutions. In DELPHI WORLD MONEY LTD. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-II) CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI, COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, RANGE 1, DIVISION III, MUMBAI. [2024 (11) TMI 781 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], earlier orders are referred and based upon the same order interfered with the orders made by this officer on almost identical grounds.

  The second Respondent should dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event before 31 January 2025.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 55
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - service of SCN - impugned order is challenged on the premise that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment have been served by tendering to the petitioner or by registered post, instead it was uploaded in the common portal - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

  The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 54
  

  Challenge to validity of Section 16 (4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - setting aside the Notification dated 31.03.2023 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), whereby the time limit was extended for passing the orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 28.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.4 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the CGST Act, as amended, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

  The writ petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 53
  

  Cancellation of GST Registration of the Petitioner - no-filing of returns u/s 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - cancellation of registration without assigning any reason - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 would show that the said order is passed by a quasi-judicial authority. The effect of the said order would be that in absence of a registration, the petitioner cannot carry out his business. Therefore, the effect of the said impugned order would entail civil consequences.

  If this Court peruses the order, it is shocking that the respondent No. 4 had cancelled the registration without assigning any reason. This clearly shows a total non-application of mind. Accordingly, this Court therefore sets aside the said impugned order dated 06.04.2022, thereby restoring the status back to the date on which the Show Cause notice dated 02.02.2022 was issued.

  The instant writ petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 52
  

  Rejection of appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein against the Order of Adjudicating Authority dated 20th of December, 2023 - rejection on the ground that it was barred by limitation - rectification of the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, R&B, Division Kupwara dated 26th of July, 2024, it transpires that, prima facie, there is some mistake committed by the Executive Engineer concerned in uploading the TDS against the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the Petitioner. We are not sure as to whether this aspect of the matter, if brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority, would ultimately result into rectification of the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority or not - the Petitioner deserves an opportunity to place this material, including the certificate dated 26th of July, 2024 and other relevant record, before the Adjudicating Authority and seek rectification in terms of Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

  It is deemd appropriate and in the interests of justice to dispose of this Petition by permitting the Petitioner to file a rectification application under Section 161 of the Act of 2017 before the Adjudicating Authority within a period of two weeks from today - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 51
  

  Permission to rectify/ amend the GST number of the purchaser in GSTR-1 return with respect to the invoices dated 13.05.2021 (on account of human error) for the quarter ending 30.06.2021 after the limitation period is expired in terms of Section 37 (3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The process as submitted by learned counsel for the Revenue is complete in itself and each step precedes the earlier step. If one of the steps is erroneous and the same is not corrected or rectified within the timeline provided under the provisions, a cascading effect would occur to the subsequent process provided under the subsequent provisions. We are satisfied from the aforesaid provisions that if a person submits an erroneous GSTR-1, and does not correct it, the subsequent GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B would also reflect the erroneous information and the consequences thereof shall follow.

  The time limitation, as provided under Section 37 (1) and 37 (3) of the Act, is linked directly and proportionately to Section 16 (4) of the Act. In terms of the aforesaid provisions, input tax credit can be availed till the due date of furnishing the return under Section 39 of the Act for the month of September following the end of the financial year to which the invoice / debit note pertains or furnishing of the annual return, whichever is earlier. The correction in the corresponding GSTR-1 is permissible in terms of the timeline as specified in Section 16 (4) of the Act.

  The petitioner could not detect the error of mentioning the point of sale as Mumbai instead of Delhi and the mentioning of the GST number of purchaser of Mumbai instead of GST number of purchaser of Delhi which has resultant, as per his submissions, loss to the concerned purchaser, who could not avail the ITC. Last date of submission for rectification/ omission, admittedly falls on 30.11.2022 for the concerned petitioner.

  In Bharti Airtel’s case [2021 (11) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court was considering the question of similar nature. In the said case, the Bharti Airtel has erroneously deposited cash and submitted that if it was allowed to rectify Form GSTR-3B so as to avail ITC for the relevant period, amount paid by it in cash towards the OTL would get credited to its electronic cash ledger account. After considering the provisions of Section 39 of the Act, which relates to the final return being filed under Form GSTR-3B, it proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Delhi High Court observing 'the matching and correction process happens on its own as per the mechanism specified in Sections 37 and 38, after which Form GSTR3 is generated for the purposes of submission of returns; and once it is submitted, any changes thereto may have cascading effect. Therefore, the law permits rectification of errors and omissions only at the initial stages of Forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3, but in the specified manner. It is a different dispensation provided than the one in pre-GST period, which did not have the provision of auto-populated records and entries.'

  As per Section 16 (4) of the Act, a registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit after the due date of furnishing of the return under Section 39 of the Act for the month of September following the end of financial year to which such invoice or debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. Thus, ITC can be availed till the due date of furnishing of the return. If there is a correction in the corresponding GSTR-1 within the timeline, ITC would be permissible in terms of the timeline specified in Section 64 of the Act, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to rectify the return beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the GST Act.

  The claim of the petitioner for correction of the return is rejected. The writ petition is found to be without any force and is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 50
  

  Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - fraudulent claims of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - creation of fake forms - forging and fabrication of fake bills showing inter se transactions of sales and purchases - HELD THAT:- The allegations are broadly to the effect that the petitioners had availed of ‘Input Tax Credit’ by raising false bills and showing fictitious transactions effected through dummy firms which were actually not in business. Such allegations, on the face of it would certainly attract offence under IPC for allegedly availing ‘Input Tax Credit’ fradulently on the basis of false documents and sham transactions. At the same time, since fraud had allegedly been committed with respect to availing ‘Input Tax Credit’ under provisions of GST, the penal provisions of GST would also attracted.

  Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 suggests that there is no absolute bar to try an offender under two different enactments, but the bar is only to the punishment of the offender twice for the offence. The same set of facts, in conceivable cases, can constitute offences under two different laws. An act or an omission can amount to and constitute an offence under the IPC and at the same time, an offence under any other law - This Court however, finds that the said judgments particularly the Supreme Court’s judgments have not directly dealt with the issue where act constitutes offence under two enactments particularly in reference to Section 26 of General Clauses Act. However, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has specifically dealt with the said issue on several occasions in some other cases.

  Hon’ble Supreme Court in TS BALIAH VERSUS TS RANGACHARI, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE VI, MADRAS [1968 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], held that where an act or an omission constitutes an offence under two enactments, the offender may be prosecuted and punished under either or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.

  In STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS HAT SINGH & ORS. [2003 (1) TMI 723 - SUPREME COURT] Hon’ble Apex Court discussed the doctrine of double jeopardy and section 26 of the General Clauses Act to observe that prosecution under two different Acts is permissible if the ingredients of the provisions are satisfied on the same facts.

  Admittedly, the petitioners have also been proceeded in a complaint filed against them under Section 132 of CGST Act, which is pending at Ludhiana wherein petitioner-Jatinder Menro remained in custody for 1 year and 8 months and petitioner-Mandeep Singh remained behind bars for about 1 year. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were not on the run and had associated themselves with the authorities concerned. However, the petitioners now apprehend their arrest on account alleged disclosure statement dated 2.11.2013 by Sammy Dhiman and addition of offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC. It is now pursuant to recording of said disclosure statement that the petitioners came to be nominated as accused in the present FIR on 02.11.2023.

  Having regard to the position wherein it is prima facie found that the allegations as in the complaint under Section 132 of CGST Act and in the FIR are more or less overlapping and also that the allegations pertaining to raising of false bills for showing false transactions would specifically be covered under offences under CGST and also that the petitioners have remained behind bars for a substantial period in respect of a complaint under Section 132 of CGST Act and neither the petitioners are alleged to been on the run during these five years nor the police had chosen to arrest them ever since lodging of the FIR, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 49
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to Order-in-Original and Summary of the Order - entitlement to Input Tax Credit [ITC] in respect of purchase of coal - refund of ITC on zero-rated supplies - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that ordinarily in revenue matters, the court does not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioner has a statutory remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an adequate and efficacious remedy. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction, does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal against a decision of a court or tribunal or an adjudicating authority to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon a statutory remedy provided by the governing statute for obtaining relief.

  In the case in hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive the Demand –cum- Show Cause Notices. On receipt of the Demand –cum- Show Cause Notices, the petitioner ought to have replied to the said Demand –cum- Show Cause Notices. By issuance of a show cause notice, a noticee is asked to respond to the proposed action. With issuance of a show cause notice, the rights and obligations of the parties are not decided finally - In the case in hand, with the petitioner not availing the opportunity of submitting a reply to the show cause notice after seeking time for four weeks and to submit an effective reply and declining to avail any personal hearing to one Show Cause Notice and by not responding to the other Show Cause Notice, it is not open for the petitioner to raise a ground that it was a case of no notice and no opportunity of hearing.

  In view of the fact that an adequate, efficacious and statutory remedy has already been provided to assail an order like the Order-in-Original dated 06.09.2024 before the Appellate Authority, this Court is of the view that this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be entertained at this stage, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. It is accordingly observed.

  This Court is of the considered view that while not entertaining the writ petition, the same can be disposed of with the following observations and directions balancing the equities and for the interest of justice as well as having regard to the fact that the bank account[s] of the petitioner has/have remained freezed and unoperational since 02.04.2024, a date prior to issuance of the Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice dated 08.04.2024 - the writ petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 48
  

  Maintainability of petition - Availability of statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 - Challenge to Order-in-Original and Summary of the Order - Input Tax Credit [ITC] in respect of purchase of coal - freezing of the petitioner's bank account - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that ordinarily in revenue matters, the court does not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioner has a statutory remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an adequate and efficacious remedy. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction, does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal against a decision of a court or tribunal or an adjudicating authority to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by the governing statute for obtaining relief.

  In the case in hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive the Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice. On receipt of the Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice, the petitioner ought to have replied to the said Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice. By issuance of a show cause notice, a noticee is asked to respond to the proposed action. With issuance of a show cause notice, the rights and obligations of the parties are not decided finally. The event of issuance of a show cause notice is a step towards taking a final decision in the matter by the competent authority. A tentative view taken in the process cannot be deemed to be the final view taken in the matter.

  It has not emerged that there was total violation of the principles of natural justice in the case in hand. Prima facie the case is not one which falls in the category of no notice and no opportunity of hearing. There is a distinction between a case where there is total violation of the rule of audi alteram partem with no notice and no opportunity of hearing and a case where there is violation of a facet of the rule of audi alteram partem in that the assessee was not afforded with any notice and/or opportunity of hearing. It does not emerge from the facts of the case that the petitioner was not provided with any kind of prior opportunity and hearing before issuance of the impugned Order-in-Original.

  In view of the fact that an adequate, efficacious and statutory remedy has already been provided to assail an order like the Order-in-Original dated 16.08.2024 before the Appellate Authority, this Court is of the view that this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be entertained at this stage, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. It is accordingly observed.

  This Court is of the considered view that while not entertaining the writ petition, the same can be disposed of subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - the writ petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 47
  

  Legality of the Order-in-Original and Summary of the Order under the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 - Entitlement of the petitioner to Input Tax Credit (ITC) - refund of ITC on zero-rated supplies - after submission of the reply by the petitioner seeking time, the Adjudicating Authority did not apprise the petitioner about the next date of hearing in connection with the Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice under reference - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It does not emerge from the facts of the case that the petitioner was not provided with any kind of prior opportunity and hearing before issuance of the impugned Order-in-Original.

  In the case in hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive the Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice. On receipt of the Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice, the petitioner ought to have replied to the said Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice. By issuance of a show cause notice, a noticee is asked to respond to the proposed action. With issuance of a show cause notice, the rights and obligations of the parties are not decided finally - A tentative view taken in the process cannot be deemed to be the final view taken in the matter. The final view is dependent on the response received from the noticee and if the noticee is able to show sufficient cause as to why no action as contemplated under the show cause notice should be taken the final view may altogether be different. In the case in hand, with the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of submitting an effective reply to the show cause notice after seeking time for four weeks and declined to avail any personal hearing. In such scenario, it is not open for the petitioner to raise a ground that it was a case of no notice and no opportunity of hearing.

  In view of the fact that an adequate, efficacious and statutory remedy has already been provided to assail an order like the Order-in-Original dated 08.04.2024 before the Appellate Authority, this Court is of the view that this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be entertained at this stage, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. It is accordingly observed.

  The writ petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 46
  

  Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - Cancellation of registration of the petitioner - appeal against the cancellation of GST registration was filed within the prescribed limitation period - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that after service of the impugned order dated 04.03.2023, the appeal should have been preferred within limitation, but the appeal has been preferred beyond the limitation - Further, before this Court also, petitioner has failed to give any good ground for condonation of delay, therefore, this Court, under extra ordinary jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the impugned orders.

  The Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT], has specifically held 'there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days' period.'

  In the subsequent decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], this Court went on to observe that an Act cannot bar and curtail remedy under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution. The Court, however, added a word of caution and expounded that the constitutional Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. To put it differently, the fact that the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed by the statute.

  Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned orders - petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 45
  

  Seeking reimbursement of extra GST amount paid - grievance of the petitioner is that despite the enhancement from 01.01.2022, the respondents are paying the running bills with 12% GST and the petitioner is paying 18% GST - HELD THAT:- Respondents No. 2 & 3 filed a return raising baseless objection regarding maintainability of writ petition, and availability of alternative remedy under the Arbitration Act - Needless to say that no disputed question of facts are involved in this case, therefore, the petitioner cannot be relegated to the Dispute Resolution Form as provided under the agreement.

  Respondent No.4 which is a State GST Department, according to which also the rate of GST has been enhanced from 12% to 18% and same is liable to be paid by respondent No. 2 which is a Government Entity.

  The respondent No. 2 is directed to pay the difference of GST amount to the petitioner @ 6% from 01.01.2022 to 30.09.2022 with a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement - petition disposed off.

  ---

12345........ 695