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 281 to 300 of 13886 Records

• 2024 (10) TMI 1509
  

  Seeking cancellation of the GST registration with effect from 30.05.2023 - HELD THAT:- Petitioner applied for cancellation of the GST registration on 30.05.2023. However, the application was rejected by an order dated 07.12.2023. Thereafter petitioner applied again on 14.12.2023 on which a query was raised on 19.01.2024 which as per the petitioner has been duly replied to, 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 with in a period of four weeks from today.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1508
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner's reply to the SCN has not been considered while passing the impugned order - invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The ground urged in the present writ petition that some of the arguments or some of the contentions raised in reply to the show cause notice has not been considered by the Assessing Officer, cannot be enforced by this Court while invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

  There aee no no substance in the present writ petition, which is here by dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1507
  

  Challenge to assessment order - petitioner asserts that he was unaware of these notices and the impugned assessment orders since they were uploaded on the portal without being served on the petitioner through any other mode - violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner agrees that the petitioner would remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand - HELD THAT:- The documents on record indicate that the assessment orders were preceded by an intimation and a show cause notice. The assessment orders also disclose that three opportunities were provided to the petitioner for a personal hearing in December 2023. As a registered person under applicable GST enactments, the petitioner is under an obligation to monitor the portal continually. Therefore, the explanation of the petitioner for non participation in proceedings is not convincing. However, the fact remains that the petitioner did not participate in proceedings and therefore could not place its objections on record with regard to the tax demand. Solely for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned assessment orders are interfered with albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.

  The impugned assessment orders are quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period with in a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1506
  

  Rejection of petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of GST registration - HELD THAT:- In the case of M/S. SPARTA FOOD FACTORY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS SUPERINTENDENT OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS) [2024 (3) TMI 160 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], in substantially similar circumstances, the appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal on merits. In this case, the appeal was filed on 19.07.2023 with a delay of about 152 days. In the overall facts and circumstances, especially by taking note of the fact that the petitioner filed returns up to the date of cancellation and remitted taxes along with interest thereon, this is an appropriate case to direct the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits.

  The appellate order impugned herein is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits with in a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1505
  

  Taxable supply or not - salary paid to seconded employees - HELD THAT:- Since a prima facie case is made out and several High Courts granted interim relief and are also examining whether such an arrangement would qualify as a taxable supply, there shall be an interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order until the matter is heard next.

  List the matter on 08.04.2024.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1504
  

  Challenge to assessment order - alleged mismatch between the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns as also between the GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns - petitioner was unaware of the initiation of proceedings by issuing a notice in Form ASMT-10 followed by the intimation and show cause notice since such notices were uploaded on the "view additional notices and orders" tab of the GST portal - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As a registered person, the petitioner is under an obligation to monitor the GST portal continually. Therefore, the explanation that the petitioner was completely unaware of proceedings is not convincing. At the same time, it is noticeable that the confirmed demand relates to discrepancy between the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The GST Department issued multiple circulars to deal with this issue, since it is a recurrent issue. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner should be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.

  The impugned assessment order 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 a reply to the show cause notice with in the aforementioned period - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1503
  

  Challenge to assessment order - discrepancy between Form 26AS and the petitioner's returns - personal hearing was granted or not - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The documents on record clearly indicate that the assessment order was preceded by a show cause notice, which indicates that a personal hearing was offered. However, the assessment order also discloses that the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner is a civil works contractor and it is quite common for such civil work contractors to receive payments in the form of mobilization advances and against running account bills. The operative portion of the impugned assessment order clearly indicates that the tax liability was confirmed by disregarding the objections of the petitioner that the receipts in Form 26AS cannot be treated as the turnover.

  In these circumstances, the interest of justice demands that the petitioner should be heard. Solely for this reason, the impugned assessment order warrants interference, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.

  The impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order in accordance with law with in a maximum period of two months thereafter.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1502
  

  Alleged availment of fake input tax credit by the petitioner - threshold limit of 500 lakhs crossed or not - Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- As on today, there is no apprehension that the petitioner is being arrested by the respondent. However, it is made clear that if the respondent intends to arrest the petitioner, the respondent shall give 48 hours prior notice to the petitioner on his registered email.

  The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court if the occasion arises.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1501
  

  Power of review inherent in the court - modification of the directions of this Court - HELD THAT:- The order is recalled - Against statutory order, there is no question of representation for redressal of the petitioner’s grievance. Petitioner has remedy of Appeal/Review or Writ Petition is required to be examined.

  The present M.J.C. petition stands allowed while restoring C.W.J.C. No. 6795 of 2020 on the file. Registry is hereby directed to list C.W.J.C. No. 6795 of 2020 before the concerned roster Bench for deciding the matter on merit.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1500
  

  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 1499
  

  Levy of additional tax on vehicles misused - tax evasion and fraud against a Managing Director and an educational society - Section 3-A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. NSPIRA Management Services Private Limited since 2017 onwards. He is nothing to do with M/s. Narayana Educational Society. Going by the record, the accusation that has been made against M/s. Narayana Educational Society is that it is involved in tax evasion by altering vehicle purchase invoices and deceitfully misrepresented ownership to the Regional Transport Authority. The only accusation against the petitioner herein is that he being the Managing Director of M/s. NSPIRA Management Services Private Limited, has purchased the vehicles in the name of M/s. Narayana Educational Society and caused loss to the Government to a tune of Rs. 4.48 Crores by resorting to tax evasion.

  On a perusal of the complaint further goes to show that the same has been given on 03.03.2024 and the same has been registered as a case in crime No.45 of 2024 of Balajinagar Police Station, SPSR Nellore district on 04.03.2024 at about 2.00 AM, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 471, 477-A read with 34 IPC. It is not the case of the prosecution that it is the petitioner herein, who has forged or altered the documents

  Since the petitioner herein is Managing Director of M/s. NSPIRA Management Services Private Limited and has a fixed place of abode, the question of his absconding would not arise.

  The police concerned are directed to conduct investigation without taking any coercive steps against the petitioner herein, for a period of six (6) weeks. The petitioner herein is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency - List the matter after four (4) weeks for filing counter affidavit.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1498
  

  Levy of GST on mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government - HELD THAT:- Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is A.Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that 'In the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'

  In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms insofar as it relates to the issue of mining lease. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation with in a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1497
  

  Levy of GST on seigniorage fee and turnover from quarrying - HELD THAT:- Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that 'In the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'

  In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms insofar as it relates to the issue of seigniorage fee. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation with in a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The issue relating to GST on turnover from quarrying shall be proceeded with by both parties in accordance with law.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1496
  

  Challenge to SCN calling upon the petitioner to show cause with regard to GST liability under applicable GST laws in respect of both seigniorage fee and turnover from sale of quarried minerals - HELD THAT:- Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is 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.'

  This petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms as regards the imposition of GST on seigniorage fee. With regard to GST on turnover, the parties shall proceed further in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1495
  

  Demand against the petitioner - petitioner submits that during the time when the subject SCN were issued, the registration of the petitioner stood cancelled retrospectively and as such petitioner could not access the GST portal and it is only after the cancellation has been made prospective from the date of SCN, the petitioner has been able to access the portal - HELD THAT:- Since petitioner was unable to upload the reply to the said Show Cause Notices, it is felt that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notices and Show Cause Notices should be re-adjudicated. Accordingly, impugned orders both dated 13.12.2023 are set aside. The proceedings are restored on the record of the Proper Officer.

  Petitioner shall now upload a reply to the Show Cause Notices dated 18.09.2023 and 29.09.2023 within a period of one week from today. Thereafter the Proper Officer shall adjudicate the Show Cause Notices in accordance with law.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1494
  

  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 1493
  

  Levy of GST on mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government - applicability of N/N. 13/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) - HELD THAT:- Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is A.Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam, in W.P.No.30974 of 2022 [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that that 'In the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'

  In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms. Consequently, in this case, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation with in a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1492
  

  Cancellation of sale order - forefeiture of security deposit - petitioner’s firm is debarred from participating in any online Forward Auction conducted by RSP for a period of six months - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the black listing period has already been over, but there is forfeiture of Security Deposit as well as Performance Guarantee made by the petitioner, which has been done without complying the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

  In M/S KULJA INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS CHIEF GEN. MANAGER WT. PROJ. BSNL & OTHERS [2013 (10) TMI 733 - SUPREME COURT], the apex Court held, if State or its instrumentality takes decision on blacklisting then such decision is subject to judicial review on grounds of principles of natural justice, doctrine of proportionality, arbitrariness and discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

  This Court is of the opinion that the order dated 26.06.2023 under Annexure-22 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed - Petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1491
  

  Seeking to quash the order passed without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and an ex-parte order has been passed - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, but, however without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since the State Tax officer while passing the order dated 26.04.2023 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 26.04.2023 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].

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1490
  

  Challenge to corrigendum issued by opposite party no.3 - reimbursement of additional tax which has already been deducted from its running bills and to be deducted from final bills after coming into force of the Goods and Service tax, as per the claim of the petitioner and in view of the office memorandum - HED THAT:- This Court finds that payability of GST amount is under consideration, which emanates from the terms and conditions of the contract floated in the tender documents and subsequently corrigendum issued by the authority. Thereby, any dispute with regard to payment of tax, which forms part of the tender documents, can only be resolved as per the terms and conditions prescribed in the tender documents. Since there is disputed questions of fact with regard to payment of GST amount, the same can be resolved by the competent forum in terms of the DTCN/agreement executed between the parties and, as such, this Court is not inclined entertain this writ petition. However, the petitioner is permitted to approach the appropriate forum in terms of the DTCN/agreement, which is applicable to it for realization of GST amount, pursuant to the tender call notice issued by the authority under Annexure-1 and corrigendum under Annexure-5.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

1 ....111213141516171819........ 695