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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 16282 Records

• 2025 (6) TMI 422
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - consolidated order and SCN has been passed for all the financial years - no notice of hearing was given to the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- Insofar as the issuance of consolidated SCN for various financial years is concerned, a perusal of the provision would show that under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 that whenever there is a short payment or availment of Input Tax Credit, such SCN can be issued for the said ‘period’ - The Petitioner is further stated to have not filed any reply to the SCNs in these matters.

  The Petitioner is free to raise the submissions and arguments that it wishes to raise in respect of the impugned order - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 421
  

  Rejection of rectification application without giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The challenge in this case is to the effect that in the rectification application filed by the Petitioner, no hearing was given to the Petitioner. This issue has been considered and decided by this Court in HVR Solar Private Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer Class II AVATO WARD 67 & Anr. [2025 (4) TMI 730 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where the Court has held that 'the personal hearing ought to have been afforded to the Petitioner, which has not been done. Accordingly, the order in rectification application dated 28^th February, 2025 is set aside.'

  After hearing the Petitioner, the rectification application shall be decided in accordance with law - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 420
  

  Challenge to SCN on the grounds that they have been issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation - submission of the Petitioner is that the extension of limitation period vide N/N. 56/2023 - Central Tax is ultra vires the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 particularly Section 168A, which only permits such extension under circumstances of “force majeure” - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the challenge to the impugned notification is pending before the Supreme Court and the fact that the Petitioner has not been provided an opportunity to file a reply or attend a personal hearing, this Court is inclined to give an opportunity to the Petitioner to file a reply and appear personally to make the submissions before the Adjudicating Authority.

  The impugned order is set aside and the matter is relegated back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority. The Petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the impugned SCN by 15th July, 2025. Upon filing of such reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall provide the Petitioner a personal hearing, and the notice for the same shall be provided - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 419
  

  Levy of interest and penalty - delay in filing GSTR 3B returns despite having deposited the tax amount in the Electronic Cash Ledger on time - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The issue with regard to payment of interest is considered by this Court in the case of M/s.Eicher Motors Limited Vs.The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise Range-II [2024 (1) TMI 1111 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein this Court has held that the interest liability stops accruing from the date on which the amount due is deposited in the tax payer's electronic cash ledger.

  The provision of Rule 88 B(1) of the C.G. & S.T.Rules, 2017 is clarificatory in nature and therefore the question of retrospective or prospective effect will not come into picture and therefore the question of payment of interest will not arise - As far as other payments or penalty is concerned, if there is any non payment on or before the due date, it is left open to the respondent to take appropriate action.

  The impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is quashed to the extent of levying of interest alone - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 353
  

  Violation of circulars dated 01.08.2023 and 11.10.2024 - levy of taxes prior to 27.07.2023 - it was held by Rajasthan High Court that 'it is not inclined to exercise discretion to entertain this petition, particularly when the issue was not raised by the petitioner before the adjudicating authority at the time of adjudication.'

  HELD THAT:- Issue notice.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 352
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Seeking quashing of the impugned order - HELD THAT:- Although there is an appellate remedy available to the Petitioner, considering that his bank accounts are frozen by the Respondent causing considerable hardship to the Petitioner, we deem it appropriate to entertain the Petition at this stage.

  An intimation of the said deposit shall be given to the Respondent immediately. On deposit of the said amount, the impugned order dated 28th February 2025 shall be stayed till 16th June 2025.

  List the Petition on 16th June 2025.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 351
  

  Seeking payment of the outstanding GST liability in instalments under Section 80 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- On an application filed by the assessee, the Commissioner may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, allow such payment in monthly instalments not exceeding twenty four, however, subject to payment of interest under Section 50.

  In the case in hand, the outstanding amount due to be paid by the petitioner is Rs. 4,74,00,293.26/-, and it is the categorical contention of the petitioner that because of his financial liability, he cannot make payment of the entire amount in one go.

  Thus, taking note of the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, and also in view of the provision of Section 80 of the Act of 2017, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation dated 26.05.2025, filed by the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by a reasoned order, keeping in mind the provision of Section 80 of the Act of 2017 as well as the financial liability of the petitioner. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a week from today.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 350
  

  Challenge to demand cum SCN - Legality and validity of the Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28.12.2023 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is a registered Assesee under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Arunachal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and bearing GST Registration No. 12ANEPT8355Q2Z8. The Section 168A was inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 vide Section 7 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The said provision deals with the power of the Government to extend time limits in special circumstances and provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the CGST Act, 2017, the Government may, on the recommendations of the GST council by notification, extend the time limits specified in or prescribed or notified under the aforesaid Act in respect of actions which cannot be completed or complied with on account of force majeure.

  The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide Notification No. No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28.12.2023 in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, extended the limitation provided under Sub-section (10) of the Section 73 of the CGST Act for the financial year 2018-19 and 2019-20 - In terms of the said extension of time so prescribed, proceedings came to be instituted against the petitioner’s firm herein and accordingly, on conclusion of the same, order in original dated 29.08.2024 was passed confirming the demand of Rs.1,20,01,973/- only against the petitioner.

  Conclusion - This Court is of the considered view that the Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28.12.2023 would not be sustainable and accordingly, stands set aside and quashed.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 349
  

  Appealable order - Demand of ineligible input tax credit used for discharging outward tax liability for the financial year 2017-18 to 2022-23 in contravention to N/N. 46/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 15.11.2017 - Short payment of tax - recovery alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- On a prima facie view, it appears that there would be duplication of two demands as demand qua reversal of availed ITC and demand qua utilisation of ITC would be one and the same thing. But both have been separately demanded in the impugned order. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts of the case, the Petitioner is relegated to the Appellate Authority. However, the pre-deposit shall be only in respect of demands under paragraphs (ii), (iii) & (iv) of the operative part of impugned order.

  The appeal is permitted to be filed by 15th July, 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit. If any deposits have already been made by the Petitioner, adjustment thereof shall be given qua the pre-deposit - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 348
  

  Challenge to procedure adopted by the Search-cum-Selection Committee in evaluating and recommending the name of the candidates for the post of Judicial Member of Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The matter requires consideration. Hence issue notice.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 347
  

  Seeking to quash the Document/Show Cause Notice along with its attachments - also seeking to quash the ex-parte order passed u/s 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - HELD THAT:- While the document description on the portal is accurate, the title of the document at page no.78 incorrectly reads ‘Summary of Show Cause Notice’. The appropriate title ought to have been ‘Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Act’. Furthermore, a review of page no. 80 also shows that this is a summary of the Show Cause Notice, wherein the tax heads have been mentioned and the declared tax has also been mentioned.

  After having perused the documents, it is clear that any Assessee, who is regularly using the GST portal clearly would know that the description on the same is stated as show cause notice and summary thereof.

  It is well settled that an incorrect description of a document, by itself, does not negate its substantive content. In such situations, it is the substance of the document that must prevail over its form. The dashboard is clear, the watermark with the word ‘notice’ is clear and prominent and there can be no doubt that the document in question was a notice under Section 73 of the Act. A form DRC-01 is itself in the nature of a notice to show-cause. The said summary states that it is a Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Act. The reminders which were given to the Petitioner also made it clear that the earlier document was a Show Cause Notice. Under such circumstances, the plea that the document is not a Show Cause Notice is a completely frivolous and a specious plea being taken by the Petitioner, to simply justify the non-filing of its reply.

  While there is no doubt that the Department ought to take adequate precaution to ensure that such errors of misdescription do not occur, what appears to be merely an inadvertent error, in the light of all the accompanying documents and circumstances cannot be the basis for seeking quashing. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the Petitioner’s contention that the disputed document is merely a summary and not a Show Cause Notice, solely on the ground of an inadvertent misdescription in the title.

  Conclusion - i) The document dated 19th November, 2024, is a valid Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act despite the erroneous title. ii) The Petitioner was under a legal obligation to respond to the Show Cause Notice. iii) The impugned ex-parte order passed under Section 73(9) is sustainable and does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 346
  

  Challenge to order and corresponding summary orders - demand for Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the Financial Year 2017-18 despite the Show Cause Notice relating to 2018-19 - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the impugned order dated 17th December, 2024 is a detailed order, which has set out the entire mechanism, which has been adopted by the entities therein including the Petitioner, for fraudulently passing on and availing of ITC on goods-less transactions. The submission of the Respondent is that in fact, M/s Fortune Graphics Limited, which is a supplier firm from which the Petitioner firm has availed ITC, is not even traceable and it has passed on crores worth of ITC to various entities including the Petitioner. The investigation, as per the impugned order, also reveals that Mr. Sumit Tandon, the director of M/s Fortune Graphics Limited, from whom the Petitioner is stated to have received the ITC, has admitted that no goods were supplied by Fortune Graphics. Even the e-way bill analysis reveals that the entire movement of goods itself was bogus and fake.

  The question, as to whether which of the entities of the Petitioner i.e., the Delhi entity or Gurgaon entity availed of the ITC and what would be the impact of the same, would be a factual analysis, which would require a closer scrutiny. The returns filed by the various firms, which have issued the invoices and have passed on the ITC to the Petitioner as also the Petitioner’s own documents would be needed to be looked into. The said analysis would be beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.

  This Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. However, the Petitioner is permitted to avail of its appellate remedies under Section 107 of the Act in accordance with law by making the requisite pre-deposit by 15th July, 2025. If such an appeal is filed along the requisite pre-deposit, the same shall be decided on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 345
  

  Issuance of summary of show cause notice without passing any order under Section 73 (1) of the AGST Act, 2017 - opportunity of hearing also not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The decision in the case of Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd [2024 (10) TMI 279 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] is similar to the present case where it was held that 'This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that it is on account of certain technicalities and the manner in which the impugned orders were passed, this Court interfered with the impugned orders and hence set aside and quashed the same. It is also relevant to take note of that the respondent authorities were under the impression that issuance of attachment of the determination of tax which was attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice would constitute a valid Show Cause Notice. Under such circumstances, in the interest of justice, this Court while setting aside the impugned Orders-in-Original as detailed out in the Appendix, grants liberty to the respondent authorities to initiate de novo proceedings under Section 73, if deemed fit for the relevant financial year in question.'

  The issue raised in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd and the present petition is similar and therefore, the determination made in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd, shall accordingly cover the present petition and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition stands disposed of by setting aside the summary of order dated 28.02.2025 and the summary of show cause notice dated 29.11.2024 in terms of the determination and conclusion arrived at para 29 of Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 344
  

  Challenge to SCN and consequent order - vires of Notification No. 09/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that subsequent to the impugned SCN dated 23rd September, 2023 three reminders dated 13th November 2023, 22nd November, 2023 and 21st February, 2024 have also been issued. However all these reminders are uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’.

  This Court in Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others [2025 (3) TMI 1308 - DELHI HIGH COURT] under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded vide ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter.

  It is relevant to note that post 16th January 2024, the Department has effected changes in the portal to ensure that the Show Cause Notices become visible to parties. However, the impugned SCN and two out of three reminders in the present case are issued prior to 16th January, 2024. Under these circumstances, though one reminder has been issued post 16th January, 2024 where the same could have been visible to the Petitioner, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to remand this matter back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.

  The Petitioner is granted time till 15th July, 2025, to file the reply to the impugned SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner - The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 343
  

  Challenge to order - petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to file a reply or attend personal hearings - violation of principles of natural justice - challenge to vires of N/N. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has been passed without taking into account the stand of the Petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the Petitioner shall be granted another opportunity to file a reply and to attend a personal hearing.

  The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July 2025, to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner - the impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 342
  

  Disallownace of ITC - disallowance on the ground that the return under Section 39 of CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 in Form GSTR-3B had been filed beyond the stipulated date - HELD THAT:- Prima facie upon going through the materials on record since it appears that the petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 16(5), having regard to the insertion of this Section in the GST Act and noting that the actual date of submission of the return concerning tax period August, 2019 to March, 2020 is not later than 14th January, 2021, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the proper officer for the petitioner to avail the benefit of Section 16(5) of the said Act.

  The matter is remanded back to the proper officer for reconsideration of the matter, having regard to the insertion of Section 16(5) in the said Act - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 341
  

  Retrospective cancellation of the GST registration - Respondent after seeking instructions, submits that the cancellation be given effect to from the date of Show Cause Notice, i.e. 04th September, 2021 - HELD THAT:- The cancellation of GST registration shall be w.e.f. 4th September 2021. Let the change be effected even in the GST portal. If the portal needs to be opened for the sake of filing of returns and any other documents, the same shall be opened within a period of ten days.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 340
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Attachment of bank accounts - prior intimation under Form DRC-01A was not provided within the stipulated time period prescribed in terms of CGST Act and the same was issued only one day prior to the issuance of the SCN - HELD THAT:- As can be noticed from the order passed by the Supreme Court, during the pendency of this writ, the proceedings in the impugned SCN has continued, and an order under Section 74 of the CGST Act has been passed on 20th June, 2024. The Petitioner had already availed of its appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act in respect of the said order. The only issue that currently remains is in respect of the freezing of the bank account. In the opinion of this Court, after the order passed by the Supreme Court and the culmination of the proceedings in respect of the SCN, which was impugned, the order freezing the bank account would also automatically get lifted.

  Since the Petitioner has already now availed of the appellate remedy assailing the final order passed in the SCN proceeding, the order dated 28th May, 2024, freezing the bank account of the Petitioner shall stand lifted.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 339
  

  Seeking release of detained goods - petitioner submits that the subject conveyance and subject goods may be released in favour of the petitioner by imposing terms and conditions and that the petitioner would abide and comply with the same, in accordance with law - HELD THAT:- Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the specific submission made by the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in M/s. Karthik Agencies [2024 (11) TMI 521 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], it is deemed just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by directing the respondents to release the subject conveyance and goods in favour of the petitioner by imposing certain conditions.

  The concerned respondents are hereby directed to release subject goods as well as subject conveyance bearing No.KA-16-D-2418 in favour of the petitioner immediately upon the petitioner depositing aforesaid 25% of the value of the goods in a sum of Rs.2,56,965/- as well as furnishing Bank Guarantee to an extent of 75% in a sum of Rs. 7,70,895/- as well as executing a personal bond in relation to the remaining demand put forth by the respondents.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (6) TMI 338
  

  Challenge to assessment order - said proceedings did not contain a DIN number - HELD THAT:- The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors [2022 (8) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (herein referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid.

  A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa [2024 (7) TMI 1512 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST, issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam [2024 (6) TMI 1158 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.

  Conclusion - The non-mention of a DIN number in these orders, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside.

  This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the order of assessment, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.12.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said order.

  ---

1 ....111213141516171819........ 815