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 261 to 280 of 13886 Records

• 2024 (10) TMI 1529
  

  Challenge to SCN and summary of SCN - jurisdiction to issue SCN - taxabaility of transaction of sale of securities (i.e. Stock) - HELD THAT:- This Court with regard to the order passed by this Court in M/S PADAM KUMAR JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX DEPARTMENT, RANCHI; JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX; STATE TAX OFFICER, CHAIBASA CIRCLE, CHAIBASA [2024 (7) TMI 1546 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] stating that the issue involved in that writ petition is similar to the present one, where it was held that 'issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in M/S. PADAM KUMAR JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND; JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX; STATE TAX OFFICER, CHAIBASA CIRCLE, JHARKHAND [2024 (7) TMI 1537 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'Considering the contentions made by the learned counsels for the parties, without going into merits of the case, the writ application is disposed of permitting the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law and file an appeal also raising the very issue of jurisdiction that has been raised in this writ petition.'

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1528
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - lack of knowledge of proceedings originating in the intimation - notices were uploaded in the 'view additional notices and orders' tab of the GST portal - no reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand - petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand - HELD THAT:- Since the documents on record indicate clearly that the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was issued, it is just and appropriate that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.

  The impugned order dated 09.09.2023 is quashed subject to condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice with in the aforesaid period - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1527
  

  Rejection of petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation - availment of ITC by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record evidence that an online appeal was filed on 31.01.2024 after remitting the requisite pre-deposit. The assessment order was issued on 09.09.2023 and the period of limitation, without condonation, expired in early December 2023. The 30 day period for condonation would have expired in early January 2024 and the appeal was filed shortly thereafter. In the overall facts and circumstances, this is an appropriate case to direct the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits.

  Petition is disposed of by directing the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits subject to being satisfied that the 10% pre deposit was received. The impugned order is set aside for such purpose.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1526
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - no personal hearing was offered to the petitioner - GST was imposed on amounts payable by the petitioner - trade payable - HELD THAT:- It is unclear from the impugned order as to the basis for imposing GST on total trade payables. It further appears that the amount specified as turnover was taken directly from the balance sheet of the petitioner. Similarly, GST was imposed on employee benefit expenses by taking the amounts from the profit and loss account of the petitioner for the year 2017-18. Once again, it is unclear as to how liability was imposed with regard to employee benefit expenses incurred by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

  The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1525
  

  Challenge to assessment order on the ground that a personal hearing was not provided by the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As per sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a personal hearing is mandatory either if requested for or if an order adverse to the tax payer is proposed to be issued. The documents on record include the reply of the petitioner. Such reply deals with each alleged defect. The petitioner also enclosed 10 annexures in support of such reply. In these circumstances, the denial of a personal hearing undoubtedly contravenes the statutory prescription in such regard. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable.

  The impugned order dated 19.12.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1524
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Levy of interest and penalty - petitioner’s claim for input tax credit under GSTR – 3B returns in respect of certain months for the period 2018-19 has been confirmed already - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has equally efficacious remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 against the impugned order.

  The present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, if he is so advised.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1523
  

  Challenge to assessment order - petitioner submits that the petitioner reply and documents have not been considered while denying the TRAN – 1 credit - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Under Sub Section 11 of Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, the Appellate Authority exercise almost the original jurisdiction and it can call for further reports, make enquiry and consider arguments, documents as may be rationally submitted by the assessee. When the Appellate Authority vested with such an ample power would correct any mistake committed by the assessing authority, this Court finds no grounds to entertain this writ petition.

  Therefore, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, if he is so advised against the impugned order.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1522
  

  Challenge to assessment order - mismatch between the GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A returns - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the petitioner was negligent in not monitoring the GST portal, in spite of being a registered person. In these circumstances, the impugned order calls for interference, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.

  The impugned order dated 11.10.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to with in two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1521
  

  Challenge to assessment order - failure to consider all the GSTR-3B returns filed by the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner placed on record the GSTR 3B returns for several months. On comparing the impugned order against the GSTR 3B return for the month of May 2022-2023, it is evident that the turnover reflected in one single month has been compared with the turnover reflected in the GSTR 7 return filed by the counter party. Given the fact that the GSTR 7 return is an annual return, the comparison made by the adjudicating authority is undoubtedly unsustainable. At the same time, it should be noticed that the petitioner was provided multiple opportunities but failed to respond to either the notice in GSTR ASMT-10 or the show cause notice.

  Also, the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

  The impugned order dated 07.09.2023 is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand with in a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice with in the aforesaid period - As a corollary of the assessment order being quashed, the bank attachment stands raised - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1520
  

  Challenge to assessment order - mismatch between the GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A returns - vague SCN - Lack of details in the SCN - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of both the show cause notice and the summary thereof, it is evident that the said show cause notice is vague and does not contain sufficient particulars to enable the taxpayer to effectively show cause in respect of the proposed tax demand. It is also evident that no personal hearing was offered under the show cause notice and the entry in the relevant column is 'not applicable'.

  The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is permitted to issue a fresh show cause with sufficient particulars to enable the petitioner to respond thereto. Further proceedings, if any, shall be undertaken in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1519
  

  Challenge to letter rejecting Petitioner’s bid for providing man power services to Respondent No.2 - rejection of Letter of Intent by which Respondent No.2 asked Respondent No.3 i.e. M/s. Frontier Ex Servicemen Association, Latur to comply with certain conditions for issuance of work order in its favour - Respondent submitted that the Petitioner’s contention of Respondent No.3 having submitted documents of another entity was plainly misconceived - HELD THAT:- Petitioner on a perusal of the said GST Registration Certificate fairly accepted the contention of Respondent No. 3.

  The petition being devoid of merit, the same is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1518
  

  Seeking to quash the order passed by the authority under Section 77 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - seeking to issue direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to participate in the proceeding of the appeal, which has been rejected without giving opportunity of hearing to it - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner preferred appeal, but, however, without complying the requirement of law by depositing 10% of the tax. In that view of the matter, the order dated 28.12.2022 and 15.09.2023 passed by the authority under Section 16 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 vide Annexure-2 & 4 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh by passing appropriate order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, subject to its depositing of 10% of the tax demanded.

  Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1517
  

  Challenge to order-in-original - wrong availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - petitioner's reply was not taken into consideration - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the respondent proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had reversed the ITC in the GSTR-9 return and that the GSTR-9 return was unavailable.

  On perusing the reply of the petitioner, there is no assertion therein that the ITC was reversed in the GSTR-9 return. Thus, there appears to be a disconnect between the reply and the findings recorded in the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order calls for interference.

  The impugned order dated 27.12.2023 is quashed subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a detailed reply to the show cause notice with in the aforesaid period by enclosing all relevant documents - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1516
  

  Challenge to assessment order - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the service tax demand - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner averred that the services of a consultant were availed of to handle service tax compliances and that she was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order because she was not kept informed by such consultant. It also appears that the petitioner was running a beauty parlour. While the explanation of the petitioner is not totally convincing, it appears that the tax demand against a person carrying on business on a very small scale has been confirmed without such person having been heard.

  The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the petitioner remitting 20% of the tax demand with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice with in the aforesaid period - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1515
  

  Challenge to impugned order of the appellate authority under the CGST Act confirming the order of the adjudicating authority - appellable order before the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Let the respondents file affidavit-in-opposition with in four weeks, petitioner to file reply there to, if any, with in two weeks thereafter.

  List this matter for final hearing in the monthly list of June, 2024.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1514
  

  Dismissal of petition - Rejection of appeal both on the ground of not filing such appeal online and for not making the pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- The order in original is dated 09.03.2023. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by entertaining the present writ petition because the appellate authority would not be in a position to entertain an appeal under Section 107 of applicable GST statutes.

  Petition is disposed of by leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the order in original by way of writ petition before this Court. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1513
  

  Time limitation of filing appeal - rejection of petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay - HELD THAT:- The facts on record indicate clearly that the appeal was filed on 16.02.2024, whereas the condonable period expired on 13.02.2024. Consequently, the appellate authority cannot be faulted for rejecting the appeal. However, considering the extent of delay beyond the condonable period, it is an appropriate case to direct the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal on merits.

  The impugned order is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits without going into the question of limitation provided such appeal is re-presented by the petitioner with in a maximum period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1512
  

  Challenge to assessment order - relevant exemption Notification was not taken into consideration - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record the reply dated 22.12.2023 to the show cause notice. The said reply does not contain any indication that any documents were annexed thereto. In the absence of documentary proof of the nature of services provided by the petitioner, it was clearly not possible for the assessing officer to arrive at a conclusion with regard to the claimed exempted nature of services. It should, however, be recognized that the tax liability was confirmed without considering the contention of the petitioner that the relevant services are exempted. Solely for this reason, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, the impugned order calls for interference.

  The impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2023 is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit additional documents in support of the contentions raised in the reply with in the aforementioned period - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1511
  

  Challenge to assessment order - ITC availed in excess - HELD THAT:- There is contradiction between the returns relied on by the petitioner and those relied on by the respondent. For the just determination of this controversy, this aspect needs to be re-examined. Solely for that reason, the impugned order calls for interference.

  The impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to once again submit the GSTR 3B and GSTR 9 returns before the assessing officer within a 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 1510
  

  Challenge to order and recovery notice related to discrepancies in GST returns - petitioner asserts that he was unaware of the notices and the impugned order until receipt of information from the Indian Overseas Bank with regard to the attachment of his bank account - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has asserted that he is 74 years old and was unwell from September, 2023 onwards. He has also placed on record medical certificates relating to his ill health and that of his daughter. The impugned order discloses that the petitioner was not heard before such order was issued. The petitioner is not entirely blameless because the petitioner was under an obligation to monitor the GST portal continually.

  In these circumstances, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand.

  The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to show cause notice dated 12.07.2023 with in the aforesaid period - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

1 ....101112131415161718........ 695