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 201 to 220 of 13886 Records

• 2024 (11) TMI 188
  

  Right of the petitioners to claim a refund of IGST paid on export of goods - Constitutional validity of Rule 96 (10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - challenge primarily on the ground that the Rule is ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - violation of the provisions of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 265 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- Rule 96 of the CGST Rules has undergone various amendments from time to time. Though the pleadings in many of these cases refer to the metamorphosis of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules into its present form, it is conceded at the bar that it may not be necessary for this Court to examine the history of the amendments and the reasons which compelled those amendments to examine whether the provisions as they presently stand are ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act.

  A reference to the provisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act both before and after its amendment suggests that the Section itself has not imposed any restriction in the matter of availing either refund of taxes paid on input goods and input services or claiming refund of IGST after payment of IGST on the exports. While, on the authority of the judgment of the Supreme Court in VKC Footsteps [2021 (9) TMI 626 - SUPREME COURT], it may be possible for the Revenue to contend that the Parliament has a right to impose restrictions on the right to refund, it must be noticed that in VKC Footsteps, the Supreme Court was considering a question as to whether the word ‘inputs’ used in sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the CGST Act includes ‘input goods and input services’ or ‘input goods only’. On a consideration of the matter and having regard to the definition of the word ‘input’ in Section 2(59) of the CGST Act, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the word ‘inputs’ used in sub-section (3) of Section 54 insofar it applies to a refund of duties/tax arising out of an inverted duty structure contemplates refund of taxes paid on input goods alone and not input services.

  In VKC Footsteps, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that in the matter of fiscal legislation, considerable latitude has to be permitted to the State to make provisions so as to achieve its fiscal objectives and it is not the duty of the Court to undertake the task of redrawing the contours of a statutory provision. It was held that this is clearly an area of the law that judicial interpretation cannot go ahead of policy making and fiscal policy ought not to be dictated through judgments of the High Courts or the Supreme Court.

  Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules as presently worded is ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act, it is ‘manifestly arbitrary’ as the term is to be understood in the light of the law laid down in Shayara Bano [2017 (9) TMI 1302 - SUPREME COURT] and the provision as it stands today produces absurd results, not intended by the Legislature.

  Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules, as inserted by notification No.53/2018-CT dated 09-10-2018 w.e.f. 23-10-2017 is declared ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act and unenforceable on account of being manifestly arbitrary - any action that has been initiated by the issuance of a show cause notice or otherwise or has culminated in an order against the petitioners in these writ petitions on the basis of the provisions contained in Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules, as inserted by notification No.53/2018-CT dated 09-10-2018 w.e.f. 23-10-2017, will stand quashed - It is directed that no proceedings shall be taken to recover any IGST that has been refunded to the petitioners in these writ petitions by applying the provisions of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules for the period between 23-10-2017 and 08-10-2024.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 187
  

  Profiteering in GST rates - supply of “services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematography films” - failure to pass on the benefit of reduction in Goods and Services Tax [GST] rates on movie admission tickets and increase in the base price to maintain a uniform base price “cum-tax” selling price - HELD THAT:- The view as expressed by the CCI is clearly unexceptionable since a broad and maximum limit with respect to movie admission tickets that may have been formulated by a licensing authority would not detract from the statutory obligation which Section 171 of the CGST Act places upon the writ petitioner. Once it was conceded that during the period in question, the CGST rate had come to be reduced from 28% to 18%, it became mandatory for the petitioner to pass on the benefit of that reduction. There are no justification to interfere with the view expressed by the CCI in this regard.

  There are no ground to interfere with the order impugned - petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 186
  

  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 petitioner is 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 petitioner by way of show-cause notice bearing C. No. IV(09)16/ N. Deblala/ SCN/ AC/ ADJ/ SIL/ 2023-24/1690 dated 17.10.2023 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. 31/GST/ AC/ SIL/ 2023-24 dated 28.03.2024 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 185
  

  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 notices reference No. ZD18007230064969 dated 24.07.2023 and reference No. ZD1802923016975X dated 29.09.2023 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 bearing Reference No. ZD181223061367E dated 30.12.2023 passed by the respondent no.5.

  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 184
  

  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 petitioner is 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 petitioner by way of show-cause notice No. ZD181223004588F dated 06.12.2023 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 bearing Reference No. ZD180224009080Z dated 09.02.2024 passed by the respondent no. 5.

  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 183
  

  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. ZD181223034347J dated 20.12.2023 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 bearing Reference No. ZD1804240177493 dated 20.04.2024 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 182
  

  Extension of due dates under Section 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 due to Covid-19 Pandemic - time limit prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 - invocation of Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 - “force majeure” condition - 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 the 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. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, AGST that similar notification is required to be issued by the State respondents. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents fairly submit that in view of the amendments brought in by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 and in view of the Notification No. 17/2024 dated 27.09.2024, the amendments brought in to Section 16 have already taken effect and with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017.

  As such, in view of the amendments brought in, the petitioner is 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 petitioner by way of show-cause notice reference No. ZD18002240142212 dated 15.02.2024 has 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 bearing Reference No. ZD180324001417Q dated 02.03.2024 passed by the respondent no.5. The matter now stands remanded back to the competent jurisdictional officer to pass appropriate order(s) if need be.

  Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 181
  

  Lifting of attachment placed on the bank account of petitioner - recovery of the outstanding interest payable in pursuant to garnishee notice - HELD THAT:- Though several contentions have been urged by both sides with regard to compliance/non compliance of the mandatory prescribed by the CGST Act prior to issue of notice, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply to the alleged demand made in Annexure-E, it is deemed just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the petitioner to appear before respondent No. 2 on 14.10.2024 and to proceed further in accordance with law.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 180
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - order-in-original challenged on the ground that the Petitioner could not appear in the personal hearing so provided to the Petitioner as the notice dated 18.02.2022 was received on 10.03.2022 much after the dates which were fixed by the Superintendent of Audit Commissionerate (CGST) - HELD THAT:- It has been fairly submitted that against the order dated 28.03.2022, the Petitioner had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority i.e. the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, CGST and Central Excise. However the said appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

  Taking into account that the said order dated 28.03.2022 has already attained finality in view of the dismissal of the appeal and unless the said order by which the said appeal was dismissed is not set aside, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

  This Court dismisses the instant petition on the ground of not being entertained without touching on the merits. The Petitioner if so aggrieved by the order by which the appeal has been dismissed, would be at liberty to avail other remedies provided under the CGST Act, 2017 and in such proceedings, the Petitioner would also be at liberty to take such grounds including the ground of not receiving the notice of personal hearing on time.

  The dismissal of the instant writ petition on the ground that this Court does not find it to be a fit case for entertaining the writ petition would not prejudice the Petitioner in such proceedings if so filed as per the extant law - Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 109
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte adjudication proceedings against the petitioner - petitioner was not given any report of the SIB which the petitioner has specific plea requested by his letter - It was held by High Court that 'The petitioner having been denied opportunity of hearing the order impugned are vitiated and therefore liable to be set aside.'

  HELD THAT:- It is not required to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India - SLP dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 108
  

  Issuance of SCN prior to passing the Impugned Order under Section 73 [9] of the State Act or not -Compliance with the provisions of Section 73 for issuance of Show Cause Notice or not - impugned orders under Section 73 [9] of the State Act is in conformity with Section 75 [4] of the State Act or not - violation of princiles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Non-issuance of a proper and prior Show Cause Notice, as contemplated under sub-section [1] of Section 73 of AGST Act, 2017 and issuance of only Summary of Show Cause Notice and Attachment to Determination of Tax cannot be said to be in compliance with sub-section [1] of Section 73 and sub-rule [1] and Rule 142 of the AGST Rules, 2017, a Summary of Show Cause Notice is held to be not a substitute of a Show Cause Notice, contemplated by the provisions of sub-section [1] of Section 73 to set the proceeding in motion.

  From the provisions of Section 73, it emerges that the Show Cause Notice is required to be issued by the proper officer, the statement under Section 73[3] is to be issued by the proper officer as well as the Order under Section 73 [9] is required to be issued by the proper officer. Compliance of the provisions contained in sub-section [1] to sub-section [8] and sub-section [10] to sub-section [11] of Section 73 and sub-rule [1] of Rule 142 are conditions precedent to term an Order passed under sub-section [9] of Section 73 as a valid one.

  Having regard to the fact that a proper and prior Show Cause Notice under sub-section [1] of Section 73 of the AGST Act, 2017 was not issued along with the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 [Annexure-I to the writ petition] and the Attachment to Determination of Tax [Annexure-II to the writ petition], and in terms of the observations made in the common Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 [supra], the impugned Order dated 30.12.2023 [Annexure-IV to the writ petition] is found not sustainable in law and the same deserves to be set aside and quashed. It is accordingly ordered.

  The petition is disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 107
  

  Refund of integrated taxes sanctioned on export of goods for the period FY 2018-19 to 2020-21 - time limitation - challenge to notice on the ground of limitation prescribed under sub- section (10) of Section 73 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Rule 86(4B) of the CGST Rules was introduced vide Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 allowing recredit of input tax credit pertaining to the amount paid back for contravention of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. The respondent No. 2 issued notice initiating independent investigation against the petitioner in relation to the refund of integrated tax for the period in question. The first show-cause notice was issued on 03.04.2024 in respect of the Maharashtra registration and thereafter the subsequent impugned notice dated 20.08.2024 in respect of Madhya Pradesh registration has been issued. Moreso, in the entire petition, petitioner has not disclosed the actual date of refund of integrated tax.

  There is a separate period of limitation of three years from the date of erroneous refund. Even otherwise, in this case the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch started investigation against the petitioner in respect of import and export for the FY 2017-18 to 2020-2021 and after scrutinizing all the documents, the show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a time barred notice.

  There are no reason for interference in the impugned show-cause notice dated 20.08.2024 and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as not maintainable.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 106
  

  Maintainability of petition - petitioner has already availed the remedy of filing an appeal - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is entitled to succeed. Though the petitioner may have filed an appeal against Ext.P4 order (which was rejected by Ext.P7 order as being time barred), the fact remains that Ext.P7 order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is clear from Ext.P2 that the petitioner was given time till 21.07.2023 to reply to the show cause notice. Ext.P4 order appears to have been passed on 11.07.2023, even before the time for filing a reply had expired.

  Ext.P4 order is liable to be set aside. The fact that the petitioner had filed an appeal against Ext.P4 is no ground to refuse relief to the petitioner as the original order was clearly issued in violation of principles of natural justice - the writ petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P4 order and restoring the assessment of the petitioner for the year 2017-18, to the file of the 2nd respondent, who shall pass fresh orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 105
  

  Seeking restraint on 1st and 2nd Respondents from proceedings with the recovery pursuant to the impugned order - Opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, since the show cause notice as well as the reminder notices were uploaded in the GST Portal, the Petitioner was not aware of the same and therefore he is not in a position to file reply for the show cause notice.

  Further, it appears that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the Petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders are passed in violation of principles of natural justice and it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to establish their case on merits. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent.

  The impugned order dated 18.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Respondents for fresh consideration on condition that the Petitioner shall pay 10% of disputed tax to the Respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount - The Petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

  Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 104
  

  Maintainability of petition - order passed u/s 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 has been passed by the Proper Officer and not by the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- It appears that the matter requires consideration and the affidavits are required to be exchanged in the present case.

  Accordingly, let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks; rejoinder affidavit, if any, within three weeks thereafter - the respondent authorities shall release the goods to the petitioner upon his furnishing bank guarantee as per Rule 140(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.

  List this matter on January 6, 2025.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 103
  

  Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - non-submission of reply to SCN - petitioner could not respond to the SCN issued by the respondents within the stipulated period on account of sickness - HELD THAT:- The present petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the order passed by this Court in Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and Others [2022 (9) TMI 1412 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. In the said judgment, the Court has held that the impugned order does not assign any reason whatsoever for cancelling registration of the petitioner and is passed only on the ground that reply to the show cause notice is not given. The non-submission of reply to the show cause notice cannot be a ground for cancellation of the registration.

  In view thereof, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. The benefit of the order in the above stated case, shall also be made available to the present petitioner - the present petition is allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 102
  

  Levy of GST under the reverse charge mechanism on the seigniorage paid by the petitioner to the Government - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'It is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision.'

  In view of the above judgment, this writ petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 101
  

  Levy of GST under the reverse charge mechanism on the seigniorage paid by the petitioner to the Government - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'It is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision.'

  In view of the above judgment, this writ petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 100
  

  Seeking modification of the order - permission to complete the assessment for the year 2019-20 in respect of the Assessee Petitioner - HELD THAT:- Attention is drawn to a previous Order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the present proceedings in THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SATARA VERSUS NEW PHALTAN SUGAR WORKS DISTILLERY DIVISION LTD. [2023 (3) TMI 1534 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], whereby, this Court allowed a similar Application filed by the State permitting assessment for the year 2018-19 to proceed as it was to become time barred post 31st March 2023.

  Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the Application, this Interim Application is allowed. However, such prayer is granted with a condition that the assessment which would be undertaken, if adverse to the Petitioner, shall not be enforced and shall be subject to the further orders which would be passed on this Petition. All contentions of the parties on the assessment are expressly kept open.

  Interim Application stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 99
  

  Challenge to Assessment order - petitioner seeks to withdraw the present writ petition in view of the order passed by a Division Bench of this High Court in DIPAK SARKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [2024 (1) TMI 1342 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- Liberty is granted to the appellant to raise its objection before the concerned contractee authority or to institute appropriate proceeding in a competent Court of law for realization of the amount due from the concerned contractee department.

  As prayed for the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

  ---

1 ....789101112131415........ 695