|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 13886 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1390
Dismissal of appeal preferred by the petitioner as being beyond limitation - no date of hearing was fixed nor any hearing granted to the petitioner prior to passing of an order under Section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, from the said communication as well as the from the impugned order, it is evident that no hearing was accorded to the petitioner prior to passing of an order under Section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act, which is a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and also in violation of the principle of nature justice. Thus on the said limited ground, both the impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1389
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Suspension of GST registration of the petitioner - consent letter/NOC from the land owner had not been produced - It is the submission of the petitioner that the provisions governing the GST registration, nowhere requires for providing NOC more than once before the authorities.
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- The respondent has issued a show cause notice and at the same time suspended the GST registration which results immediately stopping the business of the petitioner - The Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VERSUS UCO BANK AND OTHERS [2024 (4) TMI 466 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], while considering the maintainability of the writ petition on the basis of there being statutory alternate remedy has held that the writ petition is maintainable.
Suspension of registration - HELD THAT:- The petitioner was granted GST registration on 11.07.2017 and amended registration order was also passed on 10.02.2019. Thus, from 2019 onwards the petitioner has been operating his business from the principal place of business as well as from additional place of business. It is now only when some dispute has arisen between the landlord and the petitioner in December 2023 after about 4 years, the respondent has now issued the impugned letter on 20.05.2024 seeking initiation of cancellation proceedings and order has been passed on 10.07.2024 whereby the suspension of GST registration has been issued on the ground mentioning others - at the stage of amending the registration, certificate of registration and for incorporating additional place of business, no proof or consent letter or NOC from the property owner is required to be produced.
It is only for the purpose of issuing the registration certificate for the principal place of business that the NOC or consent letter from the property owner along with proof of address is required to be produced. Once the same has been done and the registration certificate has been issued, merely for adding another place of business there is no requirement under Rule 19 of the GST Rules. Rule 8 of the GST Rules cannot be read contrary to Rule 19 of the GST Rules - the petitioner is not said to have violated the GST provisions and is duly depositing his taxes. The grounds for cancellation cannot be added into the provisions of Section 29 (2) of the GST Act as there is no inclusive clause to Section 29 (2) of the GST Act.
There has been a complete non-application of mind while issuing order-cum-show cause notice dated 10.07.2024. The suspension of GST registration has been done for the entire places of business while the NOC demanded was only with respect to the additional place of business. As it is held that even for additional place of business NOC could not have been asked for by the respondents and the same cannot be a ground for suspension/ cancellation of GST registration, therefore, the order dated 10.07.2024 cannot be allowed to be sustained.
The order-cum-show cause notice dated 10.07.2024 passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside. The GST registration is restored. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue operate his business - petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1388
Service of SCN - SCN issued u/s 73 of GST Act were uploaded on 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab of the G.S.T. Portal - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the case of OLA FLEET TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS [2024 (7) TMI 1543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] a co-oridiante Bench of this Court inter alia observed and held that 'No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab "view notices and orders". On merits, as noted in the earlier orders an other dispute exists whether all replies and annexures to the replies as filed by the assessee were displayed to the assessing officer and whether those have been considered. We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy.'
In view of the submissions made and the judgement in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The orders impugned dated 27.4.2024 and 30.4.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Kanpur (annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition) are quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1387
Cancellation of GST Registration of the petitioner - non filing of returns and non payment of taxes - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the petitioner company had to undergo the CIRP process under the Insolvency and Penalty Code, certain leeway would have to be granted to the petitioner to bring its business back on the rails.
The petitioner shall file an application for revocation of the cancellation of the registration of the petitioner on or before 05.11.2024 - This application for revocation shall be accompanied by the draft returns which the petitioner proposes to file in the event of the registration of the petitioner being restored - In view of the fact that the petitioner company had to undergo the CIRP process under the Insolvency and Penalty Code, certain leeway would have to be granted to the petitioner to bring its business back on the rails. In view of the special circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1386
Cancellation of registration of the petitioner - non filing of the GST return for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- The matter is covered by the order passed in KIRAN ENTERPRISES GSTIN VERSUS COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS & ANOTHER [2024 (10) TMI 1306 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT], the present writ petition is also decided in terms of the said order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application for revocation or cancellation of the order under Section 30(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, within two weeks.
With this application, the petitioner shall also furnish all the GST returns, which he fails to submit and he will also deposit the outstanding dues of tax, interest and penalty of the goods and service tax with his application. If he makes such an application within stipulated period, the Competent Authority shall consider petitioner’s application and pass appropriate order as per law, within four weeks thereafter.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1385
Availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of the IGST paid on manpower supply services received by the Petitioner - IGST on the External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) received from VTAL - exemption provided under of Notification No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- The issue regarding admissibility of input tax credit by invoking Section 16(4) is covered by the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the cases of Bosch [2024 (9) TMI 496 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and M/S. MUSASHI AUTO PARTS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BENGALURU [2024 (7) TMI 1545 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] read with Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST dated 26/6/2024.
In regard to the second demand Circular No. 218/5/2024- GST dated 26/6/2024 and the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of AO Smith India Water Products Pvt. Ltd, [2024 (8) TMI 1453 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] are applicable. The authorities are directed to consider the same including the applicability of Section 128A & Section 13(3)(c) as regards demand of interest on the aforesaid amounts.
It is deemed just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions - Petition is hereby disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1384
Challenge to SCN demanding input tax credit availed by the Petitioner - IGST paid on manpower supply services received by the petitioner - erroneous invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 / KGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record and the submissions made by both sides will clearly indicate that prior to issuance of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2023 at Annexure — A, the State GST Authorities had already initiated proceedings as against the petitioner proposing to demand IGST and consequently, in light of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, which contemplates a complete bar / embargo on the Central GST Authorities to initiate proceedings in a situation where the State GST Authorities had already initiate proceedings as against the petitioner on the same subject matter, the impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure — A to extent of demand of IGST of Rs.1,68,04,057/- along with interest in the light of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 deserves to be quashed.
Denial of input tax credit on the alleged violation of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Bosch Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others [2024 (9) TMI 496 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and M/S. MUSASHI AUTO PARTS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BENGALURU [2024 (7) TMI 1545 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and the Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi. The input tax credit has been validly availed.
It is deemed just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions - the impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure — A dated 28.09.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 to the extent of demand of IGST of Rs.1,68,04,057/- along with interest in terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 is hereby quashed - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1383
Initiation of two parallel proceedings in respect of the same assessment period - mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal relating to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A was confirmed solely on the ground that the tax payer did not reply to the show cause notice. The admitted position is that a sum of Rs. 3,17,300/- was appropriated from the petitioner's bank account. This amount represents more than 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of assessments forming the subject of this writ petition and W.P.No.18424 of 2024. In these circumstances, reconsideration is necessary.
The impugned order dated 26.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by raising all contentions - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1382
Excess refund - petitioner asserts that he was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order - violation pf principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of orders impugned herein, it is clear that the petitioner did not participate in proceedings. Such non participation was a consequence of not monitoring the GST portal and responding to notices. In these circumstances, it is just and appropriate to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
Therefore, solely with a view to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, the orders impugned herein are set aside and these matters are remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each relevant month with in two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the respective show cause notice with in the aforesaid period.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1381
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - petitioner had not filed GST monthly returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- The reason set out in the order of cancellation is non filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. In Suguna Cutpiece, this Court directed restoration of GST registration subject to several terms and conditions. The said judgment was followed thereafter in many cases. In order to maintain consistency, the said judgment is followed.
The petitioner is directed to file her returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, together with tax dues along with interest thereon and the fee fixed for belated filing of returns within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1380
Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of assessment order - HELD THAT:- This writ petition stands disposed of directing opposite party no.3 to take a decision on the application dated 23.01.2024 under Annexure-2 and make necessary correction in the order dated 28.12.2023, which is apparent on the face of the assessment order.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1379
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit and passing of Input Tax Credit without actual supply of goods - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Tarun Jain v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI [2021 (12) TMI 135 - DELHI HIGH COURT], it considered the provisions of the CST Act, the powers of inspection, seizure and arrest prescribed under Chapter XIV of the Act, the provisions under Section 69 and 132 of the CGST Act and the judgment in P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. Union of India [2019 (4) TMI 1320 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] of this Court and the judgments in SHRAVAN A. MEHRA AND ORS. VERSUS SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, ANTI-EVASION, GST COMMISSIONERATE [2019 (2) TMI 2114 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and of the Delhi High Court itself in Raghav Agrawal v. Commissioner of Central Tax and GST Delhi North [2020 (12) TMI 940 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and of the Bombay High Court in Sapna Jain vs. Union of India [2019 (5) TMI 1610 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], which was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court without interfering into the order tagged it to be listed before the 3-Judge Bench in the case of Union of India v. Sapna Jain [2019 (6) TMI 58 - SC ORDER] and the said matter was pending till date, it observed that the question regarding anticipatory bail while dealing with offences under CGST was yet unsettled and as such decided the matter by exercising its own discretion.
As the facts of this case are also similar to the facts of the above case, which were pertaining to fraudulently availing input tax credit, extending to more than Rupees Five Hundred Lakhs under Section 132 of the TGST Act, 2017 and the petitioners are also apprehending their arrest, it is considered fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the fulfilment of terms and conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1378
Maintainability of appeal - Time limit for passing order u/s 101 of CGST Act, 2017 - appeal barred by limitation or not - failure to follow due procedure - Appellant No. 1 is Proper Authority to file an appeal - Appellant No. 2 is revisiting the stand already taken - Valuation of GTA service - inclusion of value of diesel provided by the customer (service recipient) to the trucks in the freight charged by the Applicant -
Whether time limit for passing order u/s 101 of CGST Act, 2017 stands expired? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the intention of the law according to the subsection 2 of the Section 101 of the CGST Act 2017 is to accord a right to the appellant to be heard and to obtain a ruling in respect of the appeal filed within a set time frame. If, the meaning of ‘shall’ is to be taken in a binding or restrictive manner then upon expiry of 90 days, the order cannot be passed by the Appellate Authority, depriving the appellant of the right of getting the order issued in their appeal - the word ‘shall’ in Section 101 of the CGST Act has to be interpreted in an advisory way. Any other interpretation shall have the effect of denying the right of appeal to taxpayers & stake holders which is not the scheme/intention of law. It will be interpreted to convey that the AAAR shall endeavour to pass the order in 90 days. Therefore, the argument of expiry of time limit for passing an order is hereby rejected as a preliminary objection as well as an objection to the grounds of appeal.
Whether the appeal is barred by limitation? - HELD THAT:- The impugned Order was communicated on 15.09.2022 to the Appellant No. 2 and an appeal was filed by them on 14.10.2022 that was within statutory period of 30 days, accordingly, the appeal was filed within time prescribed, hence not time barred - the appeals filed by the Appellants are well within the period of limitation are not barred by it as provided under proviso to Section 100 (2) or Section 100 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 - the preliminary objection to this effect raised by the Respondent is liable for rejection and is hereby rejected.
Whether due procedure not followed? - HELD THAT:- In view of the express provisions of Rule 107A of the CGST Rules, 2017 manual filing of appeals by the Appellants is in consonance with the legal provisions and, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent on this count is liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.
Whether Appellant No. 1 is Proper Authority to file an appeal or not? - HELD THAT:- The term ‘concerned officer’ and ‘jurisdictional officer’ are two different officers distinct from each other. Further, since there are only two officers, one from the Central GST and the other from the State GST, exercising territorial jurisdiction over a taxable person it logically follows that both are entitled to file an appeal against the Advance Ruling pronounced in respect of that taxable person. Thus, the appeal filed by the Central GST authority is well within the scope of Section 100 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Whether Appellant No. 2 is revisiting the stand already taken? - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has revisited the stand taken before the AAR, we note that the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Suratgarh vide letter dated 08.05.2024 furnished additional submissions in continuation of those made during the Personal Hearing held on 07.05.2024. It is noted that during the course of hearing, representative of the respondent has raised a contention that the appellant (Deputy Commissioner, SGST, Circle Suratgarh) cannot revisit the stand taken before the AAR to the effect that GST is not leviable on free of cost (FOC) materials supplied by service recipient to applicant when such goods are in the scope of service recipient as per contractual terms.
In the instant case, it is observed that Appellant No. 2 filed the appeal proceedings after consideration of the matter by higher authority in the State Tax department, whereas their initial stance was at their own accord sans proper approval from the higher authority. Consequently, we find that an appeal cannot be deemed non-maintainable merely because it contradicts the earlier stance taken by the appellant, under mistaken belief about the jurisdiction and authority. Thus, Appellant No. 2 has rightfully filed the appeal, rendering the issue of revisiting the previously taken stand as incorrect & improper.
The principle of estoppel cannot be made applicable in the instant case. The preliminary objection on this count is, therefore, liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.
The preliminary objections raised by the Respondent against the appeals filed by the department against the Advance Ruling dated 16.06.2022 are not sustainable and the appeals are maintainable and deserve to be decided on merits.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1377
Maintainability of advance ruling application - Admissibility of input tax credit - tax paid or deemed to have been paid on construction materials used in the construction of Marriage & Convention hall - tax paid on inward supplies of D.G. Sets, Air Conditioners, Furnitures, Chairs etc., used in the course of business of letting out of Marriage / Convention halls - HELD THAT:- The first proviso to Section 98(2) stipulates that the Authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of the CGST Act 2017. In the instant case the questions, on which the applicant seeks advance ruling, are already pending in the proceedings of show cause notice under the provisions of the CGST / KGST Act 2017. Thus the instant application is liable for rejection in terms of first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST/KGST Act 2017.
The application filed by the Applicant for advance ruling is rejected, in terms of first proviso of section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1376
Classification of supply - GST Rate - supply of affordable and non-affordable apartments under REP - Supply of Affordable residential apartments and residential apartments under REP conjointly - supply of Construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including, commercial apartments (shops, offices, godowns etc.) by a promoter in a RFP other than RREP - Eligibility of Input Tax Credit which will be used in the course of business or for furtherance of business for Construction of Commercial apartments in a Real Estate Project (REP).
GST Rate on supply of affordable and non-affordable apartments under REP - HELD THAT:- The services of construction of affordable and other than affordable apartments under REP provided by the applicant fall within the description of services specified in serial no. (ic), (id) and (if) of Notification No. 3/2019-Central Tax (Rate), dated 293-2019 and accordingly the tax rates as prescribed in the said entries shall be applicable to the said services supplied by the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant is liable to pay GST at the rate of 1.5% in respect of the services of construction of affordable residential apartments as per entry at item No. (ic), at the rate of 7.5% in respect of the services of construction of residential apartments other than affordable residential apartments as per entry at item No. (id) and at the rate Of 18% in respect of the services of construction of complex, building, civil structure or a part including commercial apartments (shops, offices, godowns etc,) as per entry at item No. (if) of Notification No. 3/2019-CentraI Tax (Rate), dated 29-3-2019 subject to the conditions prescribed under the respective entries.
Whether taxpayer can supply of Affordable residential apartments and residential apartments under REP conjointly? - HELD THAT:- The services provided by taxpayer is clearly fall under notification No. 03/2019-CT (rate) dated 29th March, 2019 - the notification bifurcates affordable and non-affordable apartments by area and gross amount charge for the apartment. There appears no bar for a promoter to supply affordable residential apartments and residential apartments conjointly. The only thing is that the taxpayer has to pay the tax according to the size and gross amount charge for the apartment subject to the condition mentioned in the Notification No. 03/2019-CT(Rate) dated 29th March 2019.
GST Rate on supply of Construction of a complex, building civil structure or a part thereof, including, commercial apartments (shops, offices, godowns etc.) by a promoter in a REP other than RREP - HELD THAT:- The applicant is liable to pay GST at the rate of 18% in respect of the services of construction of complex, building, civil structure or a part including commercial apartments (shops, offices, godowns etc.) as per entry at Item No. (if) of Notification No. 3/2019-CentraI Tax (Rate), dated 29-3-2019 subject to the conditions prescribed under the said entry.
Eligibility of input tax credit which will be used in the course of business or for furtherance of business for Construction of Commercial apartments in a Real Estate Project (REP) - HELD THAT:- ITC is restricted in case of construction undertaken on his own account. Clause (d) restricts input tax credit of goods and services used by a person for construction of immovable property (except plant and machinery) on his own account. Thus, if a person purchases construction material and engages a labour contractor to provide the construction services using the purchased material, ITC shall not be available of both the goods purchase and the services of the labour contractor procured - Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017 defines the eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit wherein section 17 of CGST Act,2017 deals in apportionment of credit and blocked credits hence these sections must be treated simultaneously. Thus, input tax credit is not available for construction of immovable property on its own account even if inputs and input services are used in course or furtherance of business.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1327
Grant of anticipatory bail - sum and substance of the prosecution case is that the appellant being the director in connivance with the others is involved in forging the documents for the purpose of getting statutory benefits with respect to customs duty and GST liability - HELD THAT:- By taking into consideration the fact that earlier a complaint was registered at the instance of another director, of the company in which the present appellant is also a director and the present proceeding being initiated in pursuance to the statement given to one of the employees during the investigation conducted thereunder, coupled with the fact that the appellant is a lady, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Needless to state that the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation.
The impugned order stands set aside and the appellant is granted anticipatory bail, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court as it deems fit for the aforesaid purpose - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1326
Blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Rule 86A of the U.P. GST Rules - satisfaction as required has not been indicated in the order impugned - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the application made by the petitioner on 18.09.2024, seeking unblocking of the ITC made by order dated 13.09.2024 continues to remain pending with the respondents, it would be in fitness of things that the respondents are directed to decide the pending application in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of this order. Before deciding the said application, the petitioner would be provided appropriate opportunity of being heard. The petitioner would be free to raise all the issues as raised in the present writ petition.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1325
Blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - sub-rule (1) under rule 86A in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Rule 86A provides for blocking of available input credit. Section 74 deals with determination of tax, inter alia, on wrongfully availing ITC. Thus there is an essential difference between section 74 operating in a field where ITC has already been availed of and rule 86A, operating where there is available ITC. In the circumstances, requirement under section 74 for issuance of show cause notice cannot be implied as mandate of pre-condition for blocking under rule 86A.
The proper officer has exercised discretion in intimating petitioner that ITC has wrongly been availed by him and therefore there will be determination and recovery of tax. Regarding the assessment made under section 62, we appreciate that petitioner, in disputing the allegation of wrongfully availing ITC and suffering blocking of his available ITC, may have been prevented from filing return. As such, we direct that petitioner will have 30 days to file return commencing from date of communication of decision taken on his representation for unblocking his ITC.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1324
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner with retrospective effect - non genuine tax-payers - petitioner was found non-existent - impugned order does not indicate any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration much less from retrospective effect - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is bereft of any reason. It neither specifies the reasons for cancelling the GST registration nor gives any clue as to why it was cancelled w.e.f 02.09.2017. The retrospective cancellation of GST registration has a cascading effect inasmuch as the concerned authorities would also deny the input tax credit to other tax payers who might have received supplies from the petitioner herein. Dealing with an identical issue in the case of Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr. [2024 (10) TMI 278 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that 'It is also necessary to observe that the mere existence of such a power would not in itself be sufficient to sustain its invocation. What we seek to emphasise is that the power to cancel retrospectively can neither be robotic nor routinely applied unless circumstances so warrant. When tested on the aforesaid precepts it becomes ex facie evident that the impugned order of cancellation cannot be sustained.'
It is foiund that there has been an abject failure on the part of the concerned authorities to assign even rudimentary reasons for retrospective cancellation.
Since the only allegation against the petitioner was that it was non-existent, which was sufficiently addressed by the petitioner in his reply by claiming that the tax payer had to go to Rajasthan due to ill health of his father, and at the relevant time when visit was scheduled by the Department, the tax payer was travelling to Rajasthan and owing to this, the business place of the tax payer was closed and it was presumed that the tax payer is non-existent. The temporary suspension of business activity on account of ill health would not warrant cancellation of taxpayer’s GST registration. The impugned order dated 27.08.2024 is completely silent with regard to even any enquiry having been conducted on the aforesaid aspect.
Both the impugned SCNs dated 06.02.2024 and 07.08.2024 as also the impugned orders dated 25.05.2024 and 27.08.2024 are set aside. Respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s GST registration - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1323
Challenge to penalty order passed in form GST MOV- 09 dated 21.09.2024 passed by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of CGST/IGST Act and Rules - clarification dated 31.12.2018 issued by the Central Board of Taxes and Customs GST Policy Wing - HELD THAT:- The impugned demand of penalty order dated 21.09.2024, Annexure-1, passed by respondent No. 2 is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in terms of the observations made hereinbefore within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed. by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
