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 >= 2 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 13821 to 13840 of 13912 Records

• 2018 (3) TMI 539
  

  Returns filed by the electronic mode are not generated on the website of the Department, and thus were not accepted - Held that: - even if the returns are forwarded belatedly, they cannot be refused for those forwarding these returns after the prescribed period are aware that they would be visited with tax liability and the component of interest and penalty may be also added - This Court should not be flooded with litigations of this nature - there are no reasons why the returns are not being accepted or not loaded on the site.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 538
  

  Rebate - recovery of amount - recovery of amount in view of enactment of transitional provisions under the CGST - Held that: - It was not an order passed merely because the Court was upset with the Respondents or because of the absence of the advocates, but it is clear from the order that it was to impress upon the Authorities that the proceedings before this Court should not be delayed - On account of the fair stand of the Petitioner and Mr. Sridharan, we direct that the amount paid of ₹ 25,000/be returned to the Respondents - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 480
  

  Validity of Minutes of the Meeting - case of petitioners is that these are not agreed Minutes, but, they are drawn up by the association and they could be at best treated as a representation of the association - Held that: - We record the statement made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, on instructions, that insofar as the grievances of returns without late fees, the petitioner may file their GSTR-3B returns with the late fees first. If that is paid and proof of such payment is produced, that will also be autocredited/refunded in their cash ledger by the CSTN within a period of one week from the date the payment is made. We accept this statement as undertaking to this Court.

  We expect the competent authority in the Ministry particularly at the State and the Central level to coordinate and resolve the issues which are raised in this petition on or before 24th April, 2018.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 389
  

  Reimbursement of additional burden due to implementation of GST - scope and extent of the contract with railways - Held that: - no cause of action has been arisen to the petitioner-assessee yet in the matter and the present petition has been filed by the petitioner- assessee prematurely against the Respondents not to take any action against them under the newly enacted GST law enforced from 01.07.2017 - Unless a cause of action arises to the petitioner-assessee by an impugned action notice or order by the Respondents-Department, the academic questions raised by the petitioner-assessee cannot be determined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - petition dismissed being pre-mature.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 2052
  

  Transitional Credit - Seeking a direction against the respondents for permission to permit the petitioner to submit their physical copy of form GST TRAN-1 or the data uploaded on GST Portal without the digital signature - Section 140 of CGST Act read with Rule 120 of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- Either parties appearing before this Court fairly submits that a similar matter came up before the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in M/S CONTINENTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THRU SECY. AND 3 OTHERS [2018 (1) TMI 1245 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. The said writ petition got disposed of on 24.01.2018. The parties in the present writ petition also do not dispute that the nature of dispute raised before the Allahabad High Court was similar to the dispute of the petitioner in the instant petition, rather the case of the petitioner was on a better footage, in as much as the petitioner had already been successful in filing of their forms before the authorities concerned, except for the fact that they could not affix their digital signature because of the system error.

  It is ordered that the respondents shall reopen the Portal within two weeks from receiving the copy of this order. In the event, if they do not do so, they will entertain the application of the petitioner manually and pass orders on it after due verification of the credit as claimed by the petitioner - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1979
  

  Eligibility for grant of alternate accommodation - HELD THAT:- The Appeal preferred by the petitioner on the issue of eligibility for grant of alternate accommodation shall be decided by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of four months from today - The decision taken on the Appeal shall be communicated to the petitioner by the Municipal Corporation. If the petitioner is held to be eligible for grant of alternate accommodation, along with the decision on Appeal, alternate accommodation shall be offered to the petitioner. Time of three weeks shall be granted to the petitioner to accept the alternate accommodation from the date of service of the decision in Appeal to the petitioner. For the said period of three weeks, the structure of the petitioner shall not be demolished.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1798
  

  Release of detained goods - Rule 140(1) of the KGST Rules, 2017 - Held that:- Identical matter has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR VERSUS MADHU. M.B. [2017 (9) TMI 1044 - KERALA HIGH COURT], directing expeditious completion of the adjudication of the matter and permitting release of the goods detained pending adjudication, in terms of Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1737
  

  Maintainability of petition - appealable order or not? - seizure of the goods in transit or storage - Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act, 2017 - Held that:- On the conjoint reading of Sections 107 and 121 of the Act it is apparent that though all orders passed under the Act by the adjudicating authority are appealable but not the one's which have been specifically excluded from the purview of appeal under Section 121 of the Act such as orders pertaining to seizure - the order of seizure of the goods in transit or storage passed under Section 129(1) of the Act is not appealable and therefore, a writ petition is maintainable against it subject to the limitations of judicial review.

  In the instant case, the goods in transit have been seized for the reason that the authorities are of the opinion that the goods have originated from New Delhi and as such amounted to interstate transaction - the finding has been returned, without hearing - Prima facie the recording of the aforesaid finding for the purposes of seizure is in the nature of adjudication which cannot be done without opportunity of hearing to the party concerned.

  Matter requires consideration - List the petition for admission/final disposal immediately thereafter.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1717
  

  Application for registration - CGST Act - Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act - rejection for the reason that the petitioner did not submit the explanation sought as regards the discrepancies in the documents submitted by him - Held that: - respondent submitted that if the petitioner submits a fresh application with the requisite documents, the competent authority would certainly consider the same - If the petitioner prefers a fresh application, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken thereon.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1622
  

  Release of detained goods - Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of The Commercial Tax Officer And The Intelligence Inspector Versus Madhu. M.B. [2017 (9) TMI 1044 - KERALA HIGH COURT], where Division Bench directed expeditious completion of the adjudication of the matter and permitting release of the goods detained pending adjudication, in terms of Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

  The writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority to complete the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of the statutes.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1540
  

  Claim of 12% GST over the value of works contract - scope of terms of the agreement - Court noted that the appropriate authority, who has to answer the claim of the petitioner/Association was the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, but, he was not impleaded as a respondent - Held that: - the Court directed the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to consider the representation given by the petitioner/Association and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner/Association.

  Though the Court would be fully justified in initiating action for contempt, considering the sensitivity of the matter and the members of the petitioner/Association, who are contractors, are put to hardship on account of the nebulous state of affairs, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to the respondent to consider the representations given by the petitioner/Association and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1539
  

  GST Council meetings - Postponement of meeting - It is the case of the petitioner that only as a political strategy, such meeting was conducted in violation of the Code of Conduct. It is alleged that the recommendations made in the 9th and 10th November, 2017 Council meeting are only to appease the voters in the ensuing elections.

  Held that: - By virtue of constitutional amendment, Article 279A is inserted, which empowers the Hon'ble President to constitute a Council to be called the Goods and Services Tax Council. Under Article 279A(4), Goods and Services Tax Council is empowered to make its recommendations to the Union and the States, on taxes, cesses and surcharges etc. As per Article 279A(9), every decision of the Council is to be taken in a meeting, where majority of not less than three fourths of the weighted votes of the members present and voted - The recommendations made by the Council are ultimately to be accepted by the government. Merely because the Council has met and made its recommendations, it cannot be said that such recommendations and steps taken by the Council are in violation of the model Code of Conduct, which is in operation in the State of Gujarat.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1296
  

  Release of detained goods - the issue covered by the decision in the case of M/s Indus Towers Limited Versus The Assistant State Tax Officer [2018 (1) TMI 1313 - KERALA HIGH COURT], where it was held that The detention of goods merely for infraction of the procedural Rules in transactions which do not amount to taxable supply, is without jurisdiction.

  The first respondent is directed to release the goods covered by Ext.P5 notice to the petitioner - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 983
  

  Release of detained goods - Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act as also the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act - Held that: - an identical matter has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in The Commercial Tax Officer And The Intelligence Inspector Versus Madhu. M.B. [2017 (9) TMI 1044 - KERALA HIGH COURT], directing expeditious completion of the adjudication of the matter and permitting release of the goods detained pending adjudication, in terms of Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - the writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority to complete the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of the statutes - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 770
  

  Levy GST on ocean freight whereas the value of import goods includes Ocean Freight. - Vires of N/N. 8/2017-Integrated Tax [Rate] dated 28th June 2017 and Entry 10 of the N/N. 10/2017-Integrated Tax [Rate] also dated 28th June 2017 - petitioner's grievance is that under the impugned Notifications, the petitioner is asked to pay tax at the prescribed rate all over again on the ocean freight - Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Notifications are ultra vires the Act and are in any case in exercise of excessive delegation of powers of subordinate legislation - Held that: - Notice and notice as to interim relief, returnable on 9th March 2018.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 766
  

  Lack of access to online profile on the Goods and Service Tax Network - petitioner unable to generate e-way bills - Held that: - The special sessions of Parliament or special or extraordinary meetings of Council would mean nothing to the assessees unless they obtain easy access to the website and portals. The regime is not tax friendly. We hope and trust that those in charge of implementation and administration of this law will at least now wake up and put in place the requisite mechanism.

  The respondents are directed to reopen the portal and give easy access to the petitioners and all assessees - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 663
  

  Seizure of goods - Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - submission is that as admittedly the seized goods were in transit from outside the State the transaction would be covered by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (I.G.S.T.) read with Central G.S.T. - Held that: - The provisions of U.P.G.S.T. are applicable to transactions within the State of U.P. whereas I.G.S.T. covers the interstate transactions.

  Even if the seizure is treated to be under Section 129(1) of the Central G.S.T., as there was no provision of E-Way bill on the relevant date under the Central G.S.T. prima facie the seizure appears to be illegal.

  As the goods seized are said to be perishable nature the same are directed to be released along with vehicle subject to the petitioner furnishing indemnity bond and security - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 608
  

  Seizure order - Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - inter-state transaction - Held that: - The U.P.G.S.T. Act makes provision for levy and collection of tax on intrastate supply of goods or services or both i.e. relating to transactions within the State, whereas IGST Act covers interstate transactions. In this view of the matter, the transaction in question is treated to be covered by the IGST Act and the provisions of U.P. G.S.T. Act would not apply - in the matter of seizure under the provisions of IGST Act the provisions of Central G.S.T. Act such as Section 129 would apply mutatis mutandis - the impugned order is to be treated to have been passed under IGST Act read with Section 129 of the Central G.S.T. Act rather than the one passed under U.P.G.S.T. Act.

  The goods and the vehicle seized are directed to be released on furnishing indemnity bond as well as security other than cash and bank guarantee of the taxable amount of the seized goods.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 195
  

  Seizure of goods - Tasla - Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Held that: - the impugned order of seizure cannot be held to be bad in law only for the reason that the wrong provision of Act has been mentioned while passing the same as the power of seizure is clearly traceable under the relevant Act as well - the impugned order is to be treated to have been passed under IGST Act read with Section 129 of the Central G.S.T. Act rather than the one passed under U.P.G.S.T. Act.

  The goods and the vehicle seized are directed to be released on furnishing indemnity bond as well as security other than cash and bank guarantee of the taxable amount of the seized goods.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 194
  

  Liability of interest - The demand raised by the respondent was accepted by the petitioner and the same was also duly paid. However, the petitioner is still liable to pay interest thereon. Thesaid amount comes to ₹ 3,48,735/- - The petitioner is permitted to remit the said amount to therespondent in five equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall commence from 01.02.2018 - petition disposed off.

  ---

1 ....688689690691692693694695696