|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 13886 Records
-
2024 (11) TMI 1406
Cancellation of the GST registration without providing opportunity to be heard - violation of principles of natural justice - appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of being filed after expiry of Limitation period as envisaged under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It appears that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner (Annexure-2) which indicates that the reason for issuing show cause notice is that the petitioner failed to furnish the return for a continuous period of six months which is mandatory as per the CGST Act - The petitioner during course of argument had submitted that in the order of cancellation, it has been mentioned that the undersigned has examined the reply but fact remains that no reply was filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period and as such principles of natural justice has been denied to him.
It is true that no reply of the petitioner was on record as informed by the CGST counsel; however, the fact remains that the petitioner failed to furnish return for a continuous period of six months. It further transpires that the appeal of the petitioner was also rejected on the ground of limitation as the same was filed after a lapse of more than 1 year and 20 days; whereas the normal period for filing appeal is three months as prescribed under section 107 (1) of CGST Act 2017.
There are no hesitation in holding that the petitioner firm is not entitled for any relief on the ground of being lethargic in approach, inasmuch as, on the one hand, the petitioner did not file return for a continuous period of six months and on the other hand the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate forum after a delay of 1 year and 20 days which is admittedly beyond the period of three months for filing appeal as prescribed under the Act.
Thus, neither there is any perversity in the order of cancellation of GST registration; nor is there any necessity for interference with the appellate order, inasmuch as, the same is filed beyond the statutory period of limitation - Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1405
Constitutionality of Section 16 (2) (c) of CGST/SGST Acts - violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- From a bare perusal of the order dated 08.12.2023 it is clear that the 1st respondent has not applied its mind and the said order has been passed in a mechanical manner.
Order bearing No. CTO/LGSTO-510/2023- 24/8814 dated 08.12.2023 by the 1st respondent (Annexure-D) is quashed - writ petition is allowed in part.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1404
Challenge to order of assessment and the DRC-07 notice and the order passed in the rectification application - order of assessment made without giving opportunity to the petitioner based upon which the notice of DRC-07 was issued - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned except to make the statement that no satisfactorily reasons attached to the annexure had been made out, the first respondent had not given any reasons. Section 161 of the TNGST Act indicates that when such an application is made and if no error on the face of record had been made out to the applications for rejection are to be rejected.
In the present case, the petitioner has pointed out an error in his return, which he seeks to rectify for passing the revised order of assessment. The said reasons had not been considered by the first respondent and therefore, the impugned order dated 04.06.2024 rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for rectification alone is hereby set aside and remitted back to the first respondent for passing a fresh order after considering the reasons and pass appropriate orders. If the authorities decide not to entertain the said request, he shall give detailed reasons as to why the said order is being made. Further proceedings, pursuant to DRC- O7 notice dated 02.01.2024 shall be kept in abeyance.
This writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1403
Availability of Input Tax Credit in respect of demo vehicles - issuance of Circular No. 231/25/2024-GST (F.NO.CBIC-20001/6/2024-GST], dated 10.09.2024 - HELD THAT:- The clarification has been also taken note of by the Haryana Government, and they have issued similar clarification vide Circular No. 231/25-HGST/2024/GST-II (CBIC Circular No.231/25/2024- GST, dated 11.09.2024), dated 13th September 2024 - Said circular discussed the availability of Input Tax Credit on demo vehicles, which are motor vehicles for transportation of passengers having approved seating capacity of not more than 13 persons in terms of clause(a) of section 17(5) of Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
Further, it deals with the availability of the Input Tax Credit on demo vehicles in cases where such vehicles are capitalized in the books of account by the authorized dealers.
The observations of not giving benefit of Input Tax Credit to vehicles, which have been initially used as demo vehicles, is accordingly, set-aside in view of the extension of grant of availability of Input Tax Credit with respect to the demo vehicles, as clarified by the aforesaid circulars.
The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of ITC.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1402
Challenge to order passed by the respondent on the premise that the same was made in violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 10.04.2024 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax within a period of four 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 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 (11) TMI 1401
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order has been made on a gross non-application of mind to the objections filed by the petitioner - rejection of petitioner's claim for ITC - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that there is some merits in the submission of the petitioner inasmuch as the impugned order does not even make a reference to the documents that have been filed in the form of E-way bill, Tax invoices, etc., while rejecting the petitioner's claim of entitlement to Input Tax Credit. Further more, in this matter the petitioner is also in possession of lorry receipts, weighbridges, etc. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be granted one final opportunity to produce all the related documents.
The impugned order is thus set aside and the petitioner is granted liberty to submit objections, if any along with the relevant documentary evidence within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such reply or documents are produced within the stipulated period i.e., two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, order would be passed afresh, after considering the reply or document and after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity therein.
This writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1400
Challenge to final order framed under Section 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - personal hearing on the scheduled date not availed - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- All that the competent authority has chosen to observe is that the reply has not been found to be satisfactory. Since the order impugned is bereft of any reasoning, it is rendered unsustainable.
The impugned order dated 20 August 2024 is quashed - petition allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1399
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order came to be passed, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the only issue raised by the petitioner is that before issuing the impugned order, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner, but the first respondent passed the impugned order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is willing to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2024.
The impugned order dated 31.05.2024 is set aside and the matter remanded back to the respondents on condition that the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand of the impugned assessment year, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file a reply within a period of two (2) weeks.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1398
Provisional attachment orders issued under Section 83 of the CGST/SGST Acts after the expiry of the prescribed period - detention of petiitoner on the allegation of fraudulent transactions, leading to the evasion of GST on a massive scale - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the law laid down in Radha Krishnan Industries [2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT] that while interpreting a taxing statute, the provisions must be construed on its plain terms and the Court must have regard to the purpose underlying the provision and an interpretation which effectuates the purpose must be preferred particularly when it is supported by the plain meaning of the words used - As can be seen from the provision of Section 83 (2) of the CGST/SGST Acts, an order of provisional attachment under Sub-section (1) of Section 83 will cease to have effect after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order made under Sub-section (1). As distinct from the provisions of Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the provisions of Section 83 (2) of the CGST/SGST Acts do not even provide for the extension of the period of provisional attachment. Therefore, it must be held that on the plain meaning of the words used in Sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the CGST/SGST Acts, an attachment cannot extend beyond the period specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 83.
It is clear that the provisions of Section 83 (2) read with the provisions of Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017 indicate beyond doubt that a provisional attachment under sub-section (2) of Section 83 cannot extend beyond a period of one year from the date on which it was first made. To accept the contention of the Revenue in this case would be to do violence to the language of the statute and permit the Revenue to keep on issuing repeated orders of provisional attachment which would mean that the provisional attachment can continue for as long as the Revenue decides that it must continue. This, obviously, was not the intention of the legislature, for had the intention been different, the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 83 would have been worded differently.
In Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India [2012 (1) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court considered whether the sale of certain shares by HTIL to Vodafone would amount to a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2 (14) of the Income Tax Act. In interpreting the expression “source of income in India” used in Section 9 (1) (i), the Court approved the above observations in Ransom. These decisions are clear authority for the proposition that the Courts will not step in and supply words or give the provisions of a statute a different meaning even if they feel that such interpretation may be necessary in the larger public interest.
It is not necessary to consider the contention that Ext. P6 series of orders also suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and is a verbatim reproduction of Ext. P2 series of orders.
Ext. P6 series of orders will stand quashed. It is declared that the provisions of Section 83 of the CGST/SGST Acts do not contemplate or authorise the issuance of a fresh order of attachment after the period specified in Section 83 (2) of the CGST/SGST Acts - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1397
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-service of notices - petitioner came to know about the impugned order from the third respondent/Bank on account of the recovery proceedings inititated against the petitioner for non-filing of GST returns - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the impugned show cause notices were uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notices issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notices were not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to establish its case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and that it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits and in accordance with law.
This Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 13.12.2023 passed by the second respondent and the consequential Provisional Attachment order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the first respondent - The orders impugned herein are set aside on condition that the petitioner deposits 10% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the assessment year in question within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1396
Seeking rectification of a ruling order - Section 102 read with Section 97 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The contention of the applicant has been examined in the light of the original order and noticed that there are some additional equipments which are required to be made available on a ship as additional safety measure in compliance with certain statutory provisions. Though these are also to be compulsorily made available on a vessel and ship but cannot be taken to be parts of a ship as per general understanding but are rather additional equipments on a ship. Hence the request of the applicant for deletion of the term “Lifeboat” in Para no. 2 of Page number 19 is not considered.
The original order is amended in para no: 2 of page no: 21 and serial numbers 81 and 89 are included and these are to be considered not as essential part of a warship/submarine but additional equipment’s.
The application is hereby “disposed off”.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1334
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner due to non-filing of the GSTR 3B returns - dismissal of appeal on the ground of limitation - non-application of mind on the part of respondents - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of record of this case, this Court finds that for non-filing of GST returns, the petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 21.11.2019 for cancellation of registration as he has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months - On perusal of the said show cause notice, it is not clear that reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered. Thus, the aforesaid show cause notice shows and impugned order are passed without application of mind on the part of respondents.
The appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 09.06.2022, has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 29.05.2024 on the ground of limitation - In the impugned order dated 09.06.2022, it is observed that the petitioner is required to pay the following amount, however, the amount is mentioned as "zero". Therefore, there was no occasion to deposit the amount because the respondents did not mention the amount to be paid.
The orders dated 09.06.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby set aside - Consequently, the petition is allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1333
Levy of differential GST on account of tax liability difference between Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B Returns filed for the period of 2017 to 2018 - Whether the petitioners are entitled to pay 10% of the disputed amount as a pre-condition in filing appeal by way of debiting the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger? - HELD THAT:- A reading of the Section would show that the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger may be used for making any payment towards output tax. The word used in the above provision is 'may' and it is not 'shall'. In the event if the word 'shall' is used, the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger shall be utilized only for the purpose of payment of output tax. Further, in terms of Section 107(6) of TNGST Act, if 10% of the disputed tax has to be paid, it means that the deposit is made only towards discharging liability of output tax. In the event if the appellants are not succeeding, the amount paid by utilizing the Electronic Credit Ledger will be taken as output tax alone.
Therefore, at no stretch of imagination, one can arrive at a conclusion that 10% of the amount paid as pre-condition for filing an appeal can be utilized other than the discharge of output tax. Rule 86(2) of TNGST Rules provides that Electronic Credit Ledger shall be debited to the extent of discharge any liability in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 or 49A or Section 49B.
A reading of the Circular dated 06.07.2022 shows that input tax credit can be utilized not only for payment of the self assessed output tax but also payable as a consequence of the proceeding instituted under the provisions of GST Laws. This circular also clarifies the position that to discharge the liability of 10% of the output tax liability in terms of Section 107(6) of TNGST Act, the amount can be remitted through Electronic Credit Ledger. Further, as contended by the petitioners that the only restrictions on the usage of Electronic Credit Ledger for payment of pre-deposit is in respect of tax payable under reverse charge mechanism, as the same is outside the ambit of Section 2(82) of TNGST Act. In the present case, there was no remark under reverse charge mechanism on the petitioners in these proceedings.
It is to be noted that the statutory appeal form APL-01 provides for the mechanism to pay pre-deposit by utilizing Electronic Credit Ledger as well. Further, vide circular dated 02.11.2023 the CBI & C prescribed special procedure for filing appeals beyond the time period specified under Section 107 of TNGST Act on condition that out of 12.5% of the prescribed mandatory deposit, 20% ie., (2.5%) has to be paid by debiting the Electronic Cash Ledger. Therefore, it is evident that the remaining statutory mandatory pre-deposit (10% of the disputed tax) under Section 107(6) of TNGST Act can be very well made by using the amount available in Electronic Credit Ledger.
This Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the pre-deposit can be made through Electronic Credit Ledger. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent are liable to be quashed, accordingly, quashed - Writ Petitions are allowed with a direction to the 1st respondent to take up the appeals filed by the petitioners on record, in the event if the appeals are dismissed only on the ground that pre-deposit has been made through Electronic Credit Ledger.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1332
Imposition of time limit for claiming ITC under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act - violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - doctrine of legitimate exception - HELD THAT:- As per Section 16(4) of the Act, the assessee or a registered person shall not be entitled to take ITC in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after the due date of furnishing of the return under Section 39 for the month of September following the end of financial year to which such invoice or invoice relating to such debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier - The provision of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act which restricts the claim of ITC only on the ground that a return is filed after the date prescribed is arbitrary as well as the tax payer who is claiming the ITC has already made the payment of tax to the supplier from whom the foods and services has been received. The payments include both cost of service or goods and the amount of Tax, thus the taxpayer cannot be deprived from his right to claim ITC.
The GST laws do not have any provision and scope for filing a revised return, taxpayers are extremely cautious to file the monthly return for March and may like to wait for a longer time to reconcile the entries and ensure that there is no unnecessary mismatch between the GST returns and the financial records - Allowing a taxpayer to file returns with payment of late fees and then disallow him the ITC, because the return was filed belatedly, is punishing him twice for a single default so committed. Moreover, with the payment of late fee u/S 47 as well as payment of interest u/S 50, the treasury has been suitably compensated for the postponement of the tax. Payment of late fees and interest are already there as deterrent for the taxpayers forcing them to be disciplined. Under such circumstances, saddling with double payment of tax by way of Section 16(4) is arbitrary and capricious.
Since, the Central Government by way of the Act of 2024 has proposed to amend Section 16 of the GST Act by introducing Section 118 of the Act of 2024, thereby jettisoning the condition of time limit, this Court is of the considered opinion that this batch of petitions deserves to be allowed without examining the constitutional validity of Section 16(4).
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1331
Validity of Show Cause Notice (SCN) and final order issued against a non-existent entity - rectification of procedural defects - Applicability of Section 160 of the CGST Act, 2017 - application of Section 87 of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning amalgamated companies - HELD THAT:- Section 87 essentially seeks to preserve and identify the transactions which may have occurred between two or more companies which ultimately amalgamate and merge. In order to fix the liabilities that would accrue under the CGST Act and to avoid a contention being raised that the Amalgamating Company and transactions undertaken with it would no longer be subject to tax, the Legislature, ex abundanti cautela, has come to place Section 87 on the statute book and which bids us to bear in mind that notwithstanding an order of amalgamation or a scheme of merger coming to be approved, for the purposes of the CGST Act, the two entities would be treated as a distinct companies for the period up to the date of the order of the competent court or tribunal approving the scheme and the registration certificate of the companies being cancelled.
Section 87 cannot be read as enabling the respondents to either continue to place a non-existent entity on notice or for that matter to pass an order of assessment referable to Section 73 against such an entity. In fact, in terms of Section 87, the liabilities of the non-existent company would in any case stand transposed to be borne by the amalgamated entity. This is, therefore, not a case where the Revenue would stand to lose or be deprived of their right to subject transactions to tax.
The impugned SCN dated 3 December 2023 as well as the impugned order dated 27 April 2024 quashed - petition allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1330
Refund of IGST on ocean freight - Constitutionality of N/N. 8/2017 and N/N. 10/2017 dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- The issue of levy of IGST on ocean freight is no longer res integra and has decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS M/S MOHIT MINERALS PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR [2022 (5) TMI 968 - SUPREME COURT] and the decision of various High Courts including this Court in case of BLA COKE PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2024 (10) TMI 492 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein, it has been categorically held that when the Notification itself is struck down, the respondent-authorities cannot insist for levy of IGST on the amount of ocean freight. Such being the position, the main issue falls for determination of this Court is whether the prayers for refund of the amount of levy are maintainable and whether this Court must direct the respondents to refund the same to the petitioner.
In case of MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court has gone on to hold that for the first type of cases namely unconstitutional levy, the remedy of writ jurisdiction exists, both under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India respectively.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking refund of the IGST is maintainable and must be allowed as the levy has been held to be unconstitutional. Impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside - The petition, therefore, succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1329
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - petitioner had stopped business at the place mentioned in the certificate of registration - issuance of certain fake invoices without actual supply of goods - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the impugned orders. A perusal of Ext.P4 order of the original authority will show that the contentions taken by the petitioner had been considered by the original authority, and there was a specific finding that the petitioner was not conducting business in the premises mentioned in the certificate of registration. It is also seen from Ext.P4 that, according to the statement recorded from the landlord of the petitioner, the premises in question were leased out to the petitioner for conducting iron and steel business from 2012 to May 2017, and thereafter no business had been conducted by the petitioner in the said premises. It is also seen that the premises were thereafter leased out by the landlord to another person, who had no relation whatsoever with the petitioner.
The original authority therefore recorded that it is evident that the details provided at the time of migration from the registration under the VAT to GST were false and the registration of the petitioner is therefore liable to be cancelled.
There is nothing on record to indicate that any of the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are wrong and require interference at the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, if the petitioner intends to restart the business, it will always be open to the petitioner to apply for fresh registration after complying with formalities.
There are no reason to entertain this writ petition - petition dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1328
Exemption from GST - supply of food to all the inpatients - composite supply or not - Applicability of N/N. 12/2017 read with Sec. 8(a) of the GST Act - raising invoices by considering the services provided to the Central Hospital, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata 700043 falling under the SAC 999311 - exempty as per entry N/N. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or not.
HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the applicant has entered into the agreement with the Central Hospital, South Eastern Railway for provide catering services by running the in-house kitchen of the hospital and for which the Central Hospital is liable to pay the consideration to the applicant. So, there can be no dispute that the applicant is supplying the services to the Central Hospital who is engaged in providing health care services to the patients. So, it is the Central Hospital and not the applicant who provides health care services.
The Telengana Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of IN RE: M/S. NAVNEETH KUMAR TALLA, [2020 (8) TMI 104 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, HYDERABAD TELANGANA] held that GST is payable on the service of supplying food and no exemption is provided as service is outsourced by the hospital and the applicant is not a clinical establishment.
Composite supply thus is constituted with two or more taxable supplies which are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other. In the instant case, the Central Hospital, being a clinical establishment, provides food to the in-patients. Such food has been outsourced by the Hospital from the applicant. Therefore, food supplied to the in-patients as advised by the doctor/nutritionists constitutes a part of composite supply of health care services in the hand of the Central Hospital itself. Supply made by the applicant to the Central Hospital is a standalone service of supply of food and in no way can be considered as a composite supply of health care services.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1327
Scope of supply - supply of works contract services - Sl. No. 3A Notification No.9/2017 dated 28-06-2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) or Sl. No. 3A of N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time - effective GST tax rate applicable to the supply - whether the services are in relation to any functions entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G or to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution of India? - HELD THAT:- The expression ‘public property’ has been defined in the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 which inter alia includes any property, whether immovable or movable which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the control of (i) the Central Government; (ii) any State Government; or (iii) any local authority. Lamphelat Lake, which is a natural water body, therefore comes under the purview of ‘public property’. However, dredging of a natural water body cannot be considered as services in regard to ‘Removal of Encroachment on Public Properties’. We are therefore unable to accept the contention of the applicant that maintenance of the natural water body can be regarded as maintenance of community assets as specified in the Eleventh Schedule [Article 243G of the Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992].
The work to alleviate urban flooding is not listed in the Eleventh and/or Twelfth Schedule supra. However, the functions entrusted to a Panchayat or to a municipality as listed in the Twelfth Schedule include the functions viz. (i) drinking water or water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes and (ii) protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects. In the instant case, the objective of the project inter alia includes improvement of water security and enhancement of environmental situation which is a subject matter of Twelfth Schedule [Article 243W of the Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992].
The supply made by the applicant to the Government of Manipur is in relation to a function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution.
Supplies made by the applicant for rejuvenating Lamphelpat waterbody to alleviate urban flooding, providing sustainable water source for Imphal City and promoting eco tourism to the State Government of Manipur are exempted from payment of tax vide serial number 3A of the N/N. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 [corresponding State N/N. 1136 F.T. dated 28.06.2017], as amended or Sl. No. 3A N/N. 9/2017 dated 28-06-2017 Integrated Tax (Rate).
-
2024 (11) TMI 1210
Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of personal hearing not granted to petitioner - HELD THAT:- Applying the ratio as laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another [2024 (3) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], it is opined that opportunity of personal hearing should have been granted to the petitioner under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 before passing any adverse order against the petitioner.
The impugned order dated November 29, 2022 passed by respondent no.2/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Shikohabad is quashed and set-aside with a direction given to the officer concerned to grant the petitioner another opportunity of filing a fresh reply and thereafter fix a date of hearing and pass a reasoned order - Petition disposed off.
........
|
9911796707
