|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 13886 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1601
Unblocking of ITC - Revocation of suspension of registration - HELD THAT:- This Court is hereby disposing of the writ petition with the liberty granted as sought for, to the writ petitioner, to bring to the notice of the concerned authority by making representation that the Input Tax Credit which has been blocked in consequence of suspension of registration be dealt with by passing an appropriate order - If such representation will be filed, the authority concerned will take decision in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1600
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1599
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1598
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1597
Challenge to assessment order - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand - violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioner also remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand - HELD THAT:- The petitioner averred in the affidavit that he carried on trade of electrical goods on a small scale and that his consultant had not brought to his knowledge the initiation of proceedings against him. While this explanation is not wholly convincing since the petitioner is under an obligation to monitor the GST portal on an on going basis, it should not be lost sight of that the tax demand was confirmed without the petitioner being heard. The petitioner has also remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand.
Solely for the purpose of providing the petitioner with an opportunity to contest the tax demand, the impugned order is set aside on condition that the receipt of 10% of the disputed tax demand be verified before re-assessment is undertaken - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1596
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not aware of the impugned order until receipt of an urgent notice dated 23.02.2024 by post - no Input Tax Credit (ITC) was claimed in respect of the purchase of the car since such purchase was not related to the petitioner's business - HELD THAT:- The record shows that the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice or participate in proceedings culminating in the impugned order. As a consequence, the petitioner was unable to contend and establish that no ITC was availed of in respect of the purchase of the BMW car - the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. Since the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand, the interest of justice warrants providing the petitioner with such opportunity, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to with in a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1595
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to assessment order - expenditure incurred by the petitioner towards price difference was treated as taxable supply under the applicable GST enactments - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that tax demands under six heads were considered therein. Proceedings were preceded by a show cause notice to which the petitioner replied. A personal hearing was admittedly provided to the petitioner. The issue on which learned counsel focussed attention pertains to price difference in relation to steel products sold by the petitioner. Undoubtedly, the adjudication of this issue would entail consideration of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conveniently addressed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The impugned order was issued on 21.12.2023 and the period of limitation, without condonation, expired on or about 21.03.2024. The petitioner is still within the condonable period. In these circumstances, it is just and appropriate that if the petitioner files an appeal within a reasonable period, such appeal be considered and disposed of on merits.
The petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1594
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1593
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1592
Challenge to assessment order - personal hearing was not offered after receipt of the petitioner's reply - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The documents on record include the petitioner's reply on 20.06.2023. Such reply was referred to in the impugned order and treated as a reply to the show cause notice. Although the petitioner is not blameless in as much as much as the petitioner did not reply to the intimation within a reasonable time or reply to the show cause notice, in view of breach of the mandatory requirement of subsection (4) of Section 75, the impugned order calls for interference.
The impugned order dated 09.10.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit any documents in support of the reply with in a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1591
Challenge to assessment order - assessing officer failed to act in accordance with the mandate under Section 5 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - opportunity of hearing provided or not - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The documents on record evince that principles of natural justice were adhered to not only by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the tax demand, but by also providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner responded both to the intimation and show cause and even submitted written synopsis before the assessing officer. The petitioner does not assert that documents submitted by him were disregarded in course of assessment. In these facts and circumstances, no case is made out to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petition is dismissed by leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1590
Challenge to allotment done in favour of O.P. No.4 - failure to satisfy requirement of the tender documents more particularly the Sealed Limited Tender Enquiry Notice - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner has not satisfied the requirement as per the tender documents, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity to have been committed by the tendering authority.
The writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1589
Seeking direction to the respondent to allow the application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of the GST - HELD THAT:- With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing today. 4. Petitioner applied for cancellation of the GST registration on 27.12.2023. However, a query was raised on 31.01.2023 seeking additional information to which as per the petitioner reply has been duly submitted, however, the application has not yet been disposed of.
The petition is disposed of directing the respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of the GST registration within a period of four weeks from today.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1588
Violation of principles of natural justice - order u/s 73 of the OGST Act passed without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax while passing the order dated 14.11.2022 has not been given opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the said order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order dated 14.11.2022 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
Therefore, this Court remits back to the very same authority to rehear the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner taking into consideration the ratio decided by this Court in KHANI KHYATIGRASTA GRAMYA COMMITTEE VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX & GST AND ANOTHER [2023 (11) TMI 1220 - ORISSA HIGH COURT].
The writ petition stands disposed of by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1587
Territorial Jurisdiction - Challenge to impugned Summons dated 26.02.2024 issued to the petitioner’s establishment located in Pune, Maharashtra - Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - present writ petition has been filed before this Court only on the ground that the registered office of the petitioner’s establishment is at Hyderabad and the requirement under the summons was for checking the liability of all the units under the petitioner’s establishment (Pan India) - HELD THAT:- The summons to the petitioner’s establishment has been issued at the office situated at Pune, Maharashtra and the office of respondent No.3, who has issued the summons, is situated at Mumbai, Maharashtra. As both the addresses, at which the summons has been issued and the authority who has issued the summons being located in the State of Maharashtra itself, it is opined that the jurisdiction for challenging the impugned summons dated 26.02.2024 would not lie with the High Court for the State of Telangana, but would be before the High Court which has the territorial jurisdiction over Pune as well as Mumbai.
The present Writ Petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available to them under law.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1534
Liability of tax on supply - secondment of employees - placement of foreign expatriates to aid and assist in the functions being carried out by the writ petitioners - value to be ascribed to the supply of goods and services and which is regulated by Rule 28 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, although payments, as asserted in the counter affidavit, were made, no invoices came to be raised by the writ petitioners entities in connection with the services provided by their related foreign. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that learned counsels had drawn our attention to the prescriptions contained in Para 3.7 of the Circular. It would perhaps be impossible for any of the respondents to assert that once the value of such services were to be treated or accepted to be „Nil’, no further tax implication under the Act would arise.
While the correctness of the position as advocated in terms of that Circular may be questioned on the ground of whether it would be consistent with the statutory provisions or may be viewed as being contentious or contrary to the intent of the Second Proviso to Rule 28 itself, it is constrained to proceed further on the basis thereof - In the facts of the present writ petitions, it is conceded that no invoices were generated. In view of the above and in light of the explicit terms of the Circular, the value of the service rendered would have to be treated as „Nil’. This would lead one to the inescapable conclusion of no perceivable or plausible tax liability possibly being created. Consequently, the proceedings initiated in terms of the impugned SCNs’ and their continuance would be futile and impractical. The impugned SCNs are essentially rendered impotent and would serve no practical purpose.
The impugned SCN is set aside - petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1533
Seeking grant of bail - double jeopardy - main argument of the applicant is with respect to double jeopardy as the applicant has already been released on bail in the offence under CGST Act and the present case involves the same offence, therefore, detention of the applicant in jail would amount punishing him for the second time for the same offence - HELD THAT:- It would be appropriate to understand the legal principle of double jeopardy which prevents an individual from being prosecuted twice for the same offence after being acquitted or convicted. It is designed to protect individual/person from risk of being subjected to multiple prosecution or punishment for the same crime. This principle exists in many legal systems including that in India. The key aspect of double jeopardy includes once same offence, i.e. the rule applies only if the second prosecution is for the same offence as the first. Secondly, final verdict, i.e. double jeopardy protection applies once there is final judgement (either conviction or acquittal).
The purpose is to ensure fairness and prevent abuse of law. In the present case, where the present first information report has been lodged for the offence under IPC and the charge sheet has been submitted after investigation collecting material from the GST department also, the complaint under CGST Act does not involve the same offence, therefore, the argument as placed by learned counsel for the applicant has no legs to stands.
In the facts of the present case, the involvement, knowledge and actions following the deposit determines that the applicant was involved in respect of transactions which he had with fake GST firms which were registered by using PAN Card and Aadhaar Card of the informant - the illegal profits as made by the fake GST firms registered on the basis of PAN and Aadhaar Cards of the informant, were made to appear legitimate by moving money / funds to the Bank accounts of others, may be company or firm or relatives' accounts.
The present case relates to economic offences. Such offence like large scale fraud, money laundering and corruption, are often viewed seriously because they affect the economic fabric of the society. The Courts may deny bail in such cases especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power. In the present case, money trail of crores, which affects the society at large scale, is involved which started from registration of fake firms by using Aadhaar and PAN Cards of the informant who had not applied for such registration.
From the report also it is clear that the discharge application of one of the accused has been rejected and it shows that the charges are proved and once on the basis of material collected chargesheet has been submitted, discharge is rejected, the case of bail is not made out in economic offence where money trail of crores has been found which is a result of registration of fake firms. Offence under the IPC is made out and such accused cannot be dealt with easy hands. The applicant is also chargesheeted hence to be dealt with the same rod.
The Apex Court has, in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT], held that precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have bearing on principle and the consideration will have to be on case-to- case basis on facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.
This is not a fit case for granting bail - the bail applications preferred by the applicant – Sanjay Dhingra are rejected.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1532
Seeking grant of bail - fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC - existence of evidence to establish conspiracy or not - economis offences involving large-scale fraud and money laundering - HELD THAT:- The principal of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" is a fundamental concept in criminal law, where the criminal justice system recognizes the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This principal emphasizes that an accused should ordinarily be granted bail unless there are compelling reasons to detain him in custody. But there are exceptions to the aforesaid principal. While, the general rule favours granting bail, there are several exceptions where courts may deny bail due to specific circumstances.
The present case relates to economic offences. Such offence like large scale fraud, money laundering and corruption, are often viewed seriously because they affect the economic fabric of the society. The Courts may deny bail in such cases especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power. In the present case, money trail of crores, which affects the society at large scale, is involved which started from registration of fake firms by using Aadhaar and PAN Cards of the informant who had not applied for such registration.
The Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2023 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT], has discussed about the constitutional mandate which is higher law and accordingly it is the basic right of person charged of offence and not convicted be ensured and given a speedy trial, thus, where the trial is not proceeding for the reasons not attributed to the accused, the Court unless there are good reasons may well be guided by exercising power to grant bail. This would be true, the trial would take years.
From the report also it is clear that the discharge application of one of the accused has been rejected and it shows that the charges are proved and once on the basis of material collected chargesheet has been submitted, discharge is rejected, the case of bail is not made out in economic offence where money trail of crores has been found which is a result of registration of fake firms. Offence under the IPC is made out and such accused cannot be dealt with easy hands.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy and another, [2023 (2) TMI 1045 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in the economic offences which are having great impact on the society, the court must be slow in exercising discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Law on consideration of the Court to grant or refusal of bail has been settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [2004 (3) TMI 763 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court has held that the court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
The Apex Court has, in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT], held that precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have bearing on principle and the consideration will have to be on caseto-case basis on facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.
Having gone through the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation of offence, role of the applicants as well as reasons given in judgements, this is not found to be a fit case for granting bail - bail application rejected.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1531
Petition filed against the rejection order passed by the respondent - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it appears that the petitioner has made the pre-deposit for filing the appeal on 13.03.2024. Thereafter, the appeal was filed manually by the petitioner on 22.03.2024, which was well within the period of limitation. However, the said appeal was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 26.07.2024 stating that the appeal has to be filed only through online portal. In the meantime, the time limit for filing the appeal was expired, due to which, when the petitioner made an attempt to file an appeal through online portal, the same was not accepted by the portal on the aspect of limitation.
Further, it appears that pursuant to the initial assessment order, the admitted tax amount was also paid by the petitioner on 04.03.2024. When such being the case, this Court is of the view that the justice has to be rendered to the petitioner by providing an opportunity to present their case before the concerned Authority and the matter has to be adjudicated on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 26.07.2024.
The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 26.07.2024 is set aside - Appellate Authority/respondent is directed to take the appeal, which was filed manually by the petitioner on 22.03.2024, on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order - the writ petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1530
Prayer for setting aside and quashing of the orders - grant of refund with interest - expired -E-way bills - HELD THAT:- In the E-way bills, the distance has been mentioned as 978 kms. The E-way bills were generated on 26.12.2022 at 6:27 pm and was valid upto 31.12.2022 till 11:59 pm. It is an admitted position that E-way bills were not extended. As per Rule 138 (10) of the RGST/CGST Rules 2017, validity of E-way bill may be extended within eight hours from the time of its expiry. The vehicle was seized at 5:45 pm at Beawar on 01.01.2023 and the E-way bills were not extended prior to that.
The defence taken up by the petitioner with regard to breakdown of the vehicle because as per the E-way bill is not convincing, the vehicle should have reached Noida on or before 31.12.2022 and as per the defence taken up by the petitioner, the vehicle was at Rajasamand on 31.12.2022. If the vehicle was under repair in Rajasamand on 31.12.2022, there was no possibility of vehicle reaching Noida before the expiry of the period of E-way bill. Petitioner thus should have applied for extension of the E-way bill.
Even if the authorities have not considered the repair bill, it is not inclined to entertain the present petition, as the repair bill which is dated 31.12.2022 are not satisfying, the date on which the E-way bills expired and the date on which the goods should have reached Noida.
There are no force in the present civil writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
