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 181 to 200 of 13886 Records

• 2024 (11) TMI 332
  

  Challenge to GST Notice on fish meal supply exemption - Circular No.80/54/2018-GST, dated 31.12.2018 - levy of tax on fish meal - HELD THAT:- This Writ Petition is closed, directing the appellate authority, namely, the first respondent to keep the appeal in abeyance and await the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court relating to classification of fish meal in PEARL CITY MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2024 (3) TMI 1368 - SC ORDER].

  Petition closed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 331
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - service of notices/communications - petitioner was not aware of the notices, and they failed to file their reply within the time - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, as per the proviso to Rule 86B of the GST Rules, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax amount. However, the petitioner, being unaware of the show cause notice, had failed to appear for personal hearing before the 1st respondent. In such case, it is clear that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice since it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits.

  The impugned order dated 26.03.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 330
  

  E-commerce operator or not - nature of supply as conceptualized in Section 9 (5) of CGST Act, 2017 read with notification No. 17/2017 dated 28.06.2017 - liability of appellant to collect and pay GST on the supply of services supplied by the drivers/service provider (person who has subscribed to online Uber platform in relation to proposed business model) to their customers (person who has subscribed to online Uber platform) identified on the Uber’s platform) under the proposed business model.

  HELD THAT:- The applicant is squarely covered in the definition of electronic commerce operator and the supply of services by way of transportation of passengers in the proposed commission free monetization model by an auto-rickshaw, radio-taxi, motorcab, maxicab and motor cycle is supplied through them. Further, by virtue of Section 9 (5) the applicant is liable to pay tax on the supply of the services of transportation of passengers by a radio-taxi, motorcab, maxicab and motor cycle.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 329
  

  Classification of pre-packed ready to eat items - Rate of GST - HELD THAT:- The process involved herein is not cooking per se, but the application says that it is 'prepared through cooking by boiling in water and preserved through retort technology'. Thus it is found that the apt classification is 2004 10 10, since both preparation and preservation is applicable to the vegetable). Further, as per rules for interpretation of Tariff-3. (c), when goods cannot be classified by reference to (a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit classification. On account of this rule as well, the item merits classification under 2004 10 10.

  All items, other than item at Sl.No. 27 merits classification under HSN 2106 90 99.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 328
  

  Classification of services rendered by the applicant - fall under the chapter 99, heading 9973 and service code 997311 or not? - applicable rate of GST - rate provided in notification no 11/2017-Central Tax Rate dated 28.6.2017 as amended vide notification No 20/2019 Central Tax (Rate) under the Sl no 17 (viii) - HELD THAT:- Transfer of right of goods requires transfer of effective control over such goods, which is not present in this case. Prior permission of the applicant has to be obtained regarding the places where the vehicle is being used. The vehicle remains under the overall control of the applicant. Repairs required, if any, are carried out by the applicant. The applicant remains the one responsible to abide by all the laws relating to motor vehicles, including damage to third parties, insurance etc. Thus, it emerges that substantial control remains with the contractor and is not handed over to the user, and therefore it cannot be said to be a transfer of the right to use the vehicle.

  The contracts in question do not tantamount to transfer of right to use. Accordingly, we find that the service is leasing or rental services, without operator, which falls under Sl. No. 17 (viii) of Notification No 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017. Such services attract GST at the rate of 18%.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 327
  

  Classification of packed halwa purchased from an outsourced manufacturer and marketed under the applicant’s brand name - whether the same are classifiable as “Namkeens etc..” and are covered by HSN Code 2106 90 and taxable under Entry 46 of Schedule II of Notification No. 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017? - HELD THAT:- Entry No 101 in Schedule I of Notification No 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017, specifically covers sweetmeats under HSN 2106 90 against 2.5% CGST. The same classification applies when halwa is purchased from a supplier and packed at the applicant's facility and marketed under applicant's brand name.

  The HSN code 2106 90 falling under Schedule II covers items such as Namkeens. When sweetmeat is specifically named and covered under Schedule I of Notification No 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017, we find no reason to classify it under Schedule II irrespective of the fact that the same HSN, viz., 2106 90 appears in both the schedules.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 326
  

  Levy of GST - revenue paid by the principals outside India - HELD THAT:- It is found that the revenue is earned on different services provided in different situations and needs to be answered separately. GST is applicable on the intermediary services provided by the applicant in India and Sri Lanka. However, the intermediary service rendered in Sri Lanka stands exempt under Notification No. 20/2019-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 30-09-2019 subject to conditions of the notification. If those conditions are satisfied by the applicant, they would stand eligible for the same.

  The installation service provided by the applicant in India is taxable - The installation services done by the applicant in Sri Lanka merit to be treated as an export of service, subject to satisfaction of all the conditions laid down in section 2 (6) of the IGST Act for it to be treated so.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 279
  

  Challenge to issuance of summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the ground that the summoning authority lacks jurisdiction by virtue of Section 6 Sub-section 2(b) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The submissions put forth are to the effect that once a detailed reply has been submitted by the petitioner, it is incumbent upon the authorities concerned to take a decision in consultation with the competent authority having jurisdiction to make the assessment.

  The opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are directed to take an appropriate decision on the reply filed by the petitioner, as mentioned above, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the authorities concerned. The order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner without fail.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 278
  

  Dismissal of appeal preferred by the petitioner as not being maintainable - no date was fixed for hearing which is mandatory in terms of Section 75(4) of GST Act - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering that there is no material by the respondents to suggest that any hearing was fixed or the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing and finding the same to be prima-facie in violation of principles of natural justice as well as under Section 75(4) of GST Act which is mandatory, the order dated 23.12.2023 is quashed.

  As the main order dated 23.12.2023 has been quashed, the order dated 05.07.2024 is also set aside - the matter is remanded to respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 261
  

  Seeking grant of regular bail - petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the main accused have not been impleaded - petitioner has undergone actual custody of 11 months and 26 days and there is one another case registered against him, in which he is on bail - offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 132 CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the charges were framed on 29.09.2023 and out of total 12 prosecution witness, three prosecution witnesses have been examined till date and one witness has given up. Further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose and will be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in DATARAM SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. [2018 (2) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT].

  Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. The Apex Court in ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY VERSUS R.S. NAYAK [1991 (12) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT] observed that Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.

  The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the charges have been framed and only three prosecution witness have been examined till date. Therefore, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose.

  Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and order is made absolute. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 260
  

  Grant of concession of regular bail - wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C & 132 (1) B & C of HGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 3 years, 2 months and 16 days, similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of bail by this Court, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on 28.01.2022 and charges stands framed on 24.05.2022, out of 40 witnesses, 8 PWs have been examined so far which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.

  Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another [2018 (2) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception.

  To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in HUSSAINARA KHATOON AND ORS. VERSUS HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA [1979 (3) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT]. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

  Reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendered in BALJINDER SINGH ALIAS ROCK VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB [2023 (3) TMI 1537 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail.

  The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 259
  

  Time limit for filing appeals - whether the Appellate Authority hearing appeals in terms of Section 107 of the Act was legally correct in rejecting the appeals which had been filed after the requisite time period laid down in Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- It is found that while the petitioners had paid the pre-deposit for hearing on the appeal, it is an admitted position that the appeals had been filed beyond the limitation period that even beyond the period which could be condoned under the provisions of Section 107 and 35 (1) of the Act while the said provision provides for a period of three months for filing of an appeal with additional period of 30 days for condonation, the provisions under Section 107 are not condemnable to Limitation Act and therefore, the delay cannot be further condoned. The condonation being provided under the Act itself. In view thereto, the action of the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeals cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified.

  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others [2019 (9) TMI 788 - SUPREME COURT], the similar issue relating to non-deposit of in cases where the pre-deposit had not been made, and the appeals were rejected before the Supreme Court where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the order was not unjustified in rejecting the appeals but left it open for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 considering the facts of each case to condone the requirement of pre-deposit.

  The cancellation of registration of GST has cascading effect on all the other businessman too who are receiving the goods from the concerned businessmen whose GST registration has been cancelled. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is essential that a finality should be arrived at between the decision taken for cancellation of the registration and also at the same time remedy should be available which is efficacious to the concerned aggrieved person.

  The powers to hear the appeal in terms of Section 107 of the Act would not be subject to filing of an appeal within the time prescribed wherein, it would not in any manner deprive a person from claiming the right of hearing of an appeal by filing of a writ petition before this Court for condonation of delay.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 258
  

  Cancellation of registration of petitioner - opportunity of hearing not provided - order was passed without assigning any reason for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of AGGARWAL DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 OTHER (S) [2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that 'The Appellate authority ought to have appreciated that the writ applicants at relevant point of time i.e. in year 2017, applied for registration which request was favourably considered by the authorities under the Act with a specific registration number allotted to the writ applicant. It was a transitional phase, whereby the old CST Act was repealed and the new regime of CGST/ GGST has come into force.'

  The aforesaid judgement was rendered in the year 2022. However, in spite of the above direction issued by this Court, the respondent-authorities without following such directions are issuing cryptic notice and order for cancellation of registration number of the petitioner - In the present matter, order of cancellation of registration is passed without giving any reason by the respondent authorities, and appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the GST Act is also dismissed.

  As the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, the respondent authorities will not be able to exercise the revisional power under section 108 of the GST Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the order of cancellation of registration are required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer at the show cause notice stage.

  Petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 257
  

  Rectification of apparent mistake underlying the passing of the impugned order - tax period of July 2018 to March 2019 - HELD THAT:- It is informed that the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of 01 February 2021.

  In view of the aforesaid and admitted facts which emerge, it is apparent that the impugned order of 23 April 2024 would not sustain - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 256
  

  Cancellation of GST registration - no reasons for cancellation provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The respondent authorities rejected the application for revocation of cancellation contrary to the directions issued by this Court. Respondent no.3 also rejected the appeal without referring to the details submitted by the petitioner - In the present case, order of cancellation of registration is therefore, passed without assigning any reason by the respondent authority and penalty was imposed without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and appeal filed by the petitioner under section 107 of the GST Act against the order of rejection of application for revocation of cancellation is also dismissed.

  As the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, respondent authority will not be able to exercise revisional power under section 108 of the GST Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority as well as order of cancellation of registration are required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer at show cause notice stage.

  The petition is partly allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority as well as order of cancellation of registration and the matter is remanded back to the respondent authority at the show cause notice stage. However, registration of the petitioner shall remain suspended till the show cause notice is disposed of as per the directions given by the Court.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 255
  

  Maintainability of petition - petitioner requests for a short accommodation - HELD THAT:- Ex facie, the present petition appears to be pre-mature. The directions pertain to the cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner and vide order dated 28.08.2024, four weeks' time has been granted, which is yet to expire.

  The petition is dismissed for being pre-mature without prejudice.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 193
  

  Extension of time limits under Section 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 due to Covid-19 - "force majeure" condition - Challenge to N/N. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 extending the period of issuance of the orders u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A careful perusal of the provisions revealed that notwithstanding anything contained under Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017 in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both pertaining to financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the registered person shall be entitled to take input tax credit in any return under Section 39 which is filed upto 30th day of November, 2021.

  Reading of these amended provisions reveal that the challenge made in the writ petition before this Court is no longer required to be addressed in view of the amendments brought in by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. In view of the amendments brought in it is evident that the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of input tax credit for the relevant period.

  In view of the amendments brought in, the petitioners are entitled to get the claim of the input tax credit subject to the conditions prescribed in the newly inserted Section 16 (5) and Section 16 (6) of the CGST Act, 2017 [inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024]. In view of the amendments brought into the statute by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 and which amendments have been given retrospective effect from 01.07.2017, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners by way of show-cause notice No. C. No. IV(09)95/SCN/CD&S/TECH-II/GHY-I/2023-24/8434 dated 28.12.2023 have been rendered redundant. Since the decision has already been taken that the same notification is required to be issued by the State Government, taking such submissions into account, this Court deems it proper to close the instant writ petition by setting aside the impugned order in original No. 192/AC/DIC-I/CGST/2023-24 dated 12.03.2024 passed by the respondent no. 4.

  The matter now stands remanded back to the competent jurisdictional officer to pass appropriate order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 191
  

  Challenge to condition imposed on the petitioner while granting bail - operating bogus and non-existing firms and creation of fake invoices/inadmissible Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- Considering that the petitioner was arrested on 25.11.2019 at the initial stage of investigation and was admitted on bail vide order dated 12.12.2019, the learned Trial Court rightly put the condition that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court since that could have hampered the further investigation. However, five years have been taken by the Department to complete the investigation which has led to filing of the complaint now in the year 2024.

  It is undisputed that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and cannot be curtailed in a casual manner. Even though the Courts are empowered to put an appropriate condition so as to ensure the presence of the petitioner during the course of trial, however, the petitioner has already shown his bona fide by not misusing the liberty and has always come back by taking the permission to travel abroad.

  This Court is of the opinion that continuing with such condition would be onerous. In regard to the impounding of passport, the Hon’ble Apex Court in SURESH NANDA VERSUS C.B.I [2008 (1) TMI 876 - SUPREME COURT] observed 'It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edn., p. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the court under Section 104 CrPC though it can impound any other document or thing.'

  The present petition is allowed and the condition imposed by the learned Trial Court to the extent that the petitioner would need permission of the learned Trial Court is set aside.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 190
  

  Unblocking of Electronic Credit Ledger [ECL] as maintained by the writ petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Act] and the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 [Rules] - negative blocking - HELD THAT:- The issue of ‘negative blocking’, and on grounds on which it is assailed by the writ petitioner, is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decision of the Court in BEST CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SH RAGHAV AGARWAL, M/S. JAI MAA ENTERPRISES, HILBERT INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD., M/S. NDCON CONSTRUCTIONS, GNG ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. KAY KAY OVERSEAS CORPORATION, SHRI BALAJI POLYMERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. ANIL KUMAR VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CGST COMMISSIONERATE, MEERUT AND ORS., COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND GST DELHI NORTH & ORS., PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER CGST AND CX, DELHI & ORS. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ANR., SALE TAX OFFICER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND ANOTHER. [2024 (9) TMI 1543 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and where it was observed 'the petitions are allowed and the orders impugned in the present petitions, as tabulated below, are set aside to the extent the impugned orders disallow debit from the respective ECL of the petitioners, in excess of the ITC available in the ECL at the time of passing of the impugned orders (referred to as Negative blocking by the counsel during the course of their submissions)'.

  The action of the respondents cannot be sustained - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 189
  

  Grant of interest/compensation in accordance with Section 56 of the CGST Act on the refund claims delayed - HELD THAT:- The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court since its pending statutory appeals were not being decided and its claims for refunds were being inordinately delayed - Pursuant to the directions issued in these proceedings, those pending appeals pertaining to the tax periods in question have come to be finally allowed in terms of an order dated 04 July 2024.

  In view of the aforesaid and since nothing further would survive, this writ petition is disposed off by directing the respondents to ensure that all refunds which have become due and payable pursuant to the order of the appellate authority dated 04 July 2024 are released in favour of the writ petitioner within a period of three weeks from today.

  ---

1 ....67891011121314........ 695