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 361 to 380 of 13886 Records

• 2024 (10) TMI 1322
  

  Denial of ITC - marking wrong place of supply in annual return as 'other territory' instead of 'Kerala' - HELD THAT:- Having considered the judgments of the Madras High court in DEEPA TRADERS VERSUS PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, SUPERINTENDENT OF GST, CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK (GSTN) , NEW DELHI [2023 (3) TMI 628 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and M/S. AKSHAYA BUILDING SOLUTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR. K. SENTHILKUMAR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE – IV DIVISION, COIMBATORE [2023 (12) TMI 511 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and also taking into consideration of the fact that the alleged mistake was in the year immediately after the introduction of GST, the petitioner can be granted relief as was done by the Madras High Court in the judgment referred to above - In Deepa Traders the Madras High Court held 'In the absence of an enabling mechanism, I am of the view that assessees should not be prejudiced from availing credit that they are otherwise legitimately entitled to. The error committed by the petitioner is an inadvertent human error and the petitioner should be in a position to rectify the same, particularly in the absence of an effective, enabling mechanism under statute.'

  This writ petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P3 order in original and consequential recovery notices namely Exts.P4 and P7 and directing the competent among the respondents to permit the petitioner to resubmit the annual return for the year 2017-18 in GSTR 9 by correcting the mistakes allegedly committed by the petitioner - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1321
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate efficacious remedy of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) - no opportunity of hearing - failure of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The complaint about no opportunity of hearing, at least prima facie, cannot be accepted. At least three intimations were sent to the Petitioner’s registered address. The Petitioner had not intimated the Respondents about the changed address. In this case, we notice that the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original were served at the Petitioner’s registered address, i.e., Shed No. 1, Gat No. 344, Ground Floor, Konde Bandhu, Near Old Post Office, Moshi, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune 411501. Further, even the Petitioner wrote to Respondent No. 3 seeking documents on a letterhead containing the same address. Even the address in the cause title of this petition is the same. Therefore, the contention about a change of address cannot be at least, prima-facie, accepted.

  This is prima facie, not a case of “no notice”, but at the highest, this is a case of “no adequate notice”. In later cases, the party complaining about inadequate notice must establish some prejudice.

  This petition is declined to be entertained - the Petitioner are relegated to avail of the alternate remedy of appeal against the impugned order - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1320
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - transition of credit - HELD THAT:- There is no reason why the Petitioner should not be relegated to the remedy of an appeal.

  Therefore, if the Petitioner files an appeal within four weeks from today, the Appellate Authority should consider such appeal on merits without going into the issue of limitation. This petition was pending since 23 June 2023 and Petitioner was bona fide prosecuting it before this Court.

  The Appellate Authority should take into consideration the effect the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2024 while deciding the appeal.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1319
  

  Dismissal of appeal - incompetent and incomplete appeal for want of deposition of the requisite fee - HELD THAT:- The stand taken by the State is appreciated and the present writ petition is disposed off with directions to the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits, subject to the petitioner depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of one week from today.

  On account of the non-payment of the requisite fee, an appeal cannot be dismissed as not maintainable, and in fact, before the Appellate Authority takes up any appeal, the appellant should be informed of any deficiency and be given a chance to deposit and remove the deficiency, if any - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1318
  

  Refund claim - no opportunity of being heard - non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 92 (3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Respondents have filed an affidavit that a hearing was given to the representative of the Petitioner. However, the same has not been made good. In any event, Rule 92 (3) contemplates issue of a notice to the applicant to show cause as to why refund should not be ordered and upon considering the reply of the applicant, an order has to be made. The proviso also states that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard.

  The impugned orders set aside to the extent they deny the Petitioner a refund. The Respondents will now have to comply with the requirements of Rule 92 (3) and decide the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible.

  By setting aside the impugned orders to the extent they deny the refund, the matter restored before the concerned Respondent for disposal of the refund application in accordance with law and by complying with the requirements Rule 92 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1317
  

  Cancellation of registration of the petitioner - rejection on the ground of laches in filing the appeal - no reasons assigned for cancellation - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The record shows that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for cancellation of registration of the petitioner, however, the reason is the heartbeat and soul of any judicial or administrative order. In the impugned order, no reason has been assigned which shows that same has been passed without any application of mind, which does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

  This Court in the case of M/s Namo Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others [2023 (10) TMI 482 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that providing of reasons in order is of essence in judicial proceedings.

  The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hongo India (P) Ltd. [2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] and the Karnataka High Court in the case of Director of Mines and Geology [2011 (9) TMI 700 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that delay i.e. beyond the period, cannot be condoned.

  In the case in hand, the cancellation of registration order has been passed without application of mind as no reason has been assigned in the impugned order dated 08.08.2023. However, the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that if no reason has been given for cancelling the registration, doctrine of merger will not apply and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents in the case at hand, are of no aid to them.

  The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority after submission of reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner within four weeks from today as it is directed to the petitioner to file it, shall proceed de novo to pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1316
  

  Levy of penalty order passed in form GST MOV- 09 dated 21.08.2024 - Submissions have been made that penalty has been imposed u/s 129(1)(b) of the Act whereas in terms of the clarification dated 31.12.2018 issued by the Central Board of Taxes and Customs GST Policy Wing, the penalty in the present case could have been levied under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act to which, the petitioner is not disputing - HELD THAT:- The respondents does not dispute the fact that the issue as raised is covered by the clarification dated 31.12.2018 as well as the judgment in the case of M/S MARGO BRUSH INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [2023 (1) TMI 1237 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT].

  The impugned demand of penalty order dated 21.08.2024, Annexure-1, passed by respondent No. 2 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. 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 - Petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1315
  

  Attachmnet of bank account of the petitioner - no relation whatsoever with the entities named in the order - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact situation, wherein the objections filed by the petitioner are pending consideration before the competent authority, it is deemed appropriate to direct the Authority to decide the pending representation/objections of the petitioner in Form GST DRC-22A (Annexure-4), after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner with the said Authority.

  The petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1314
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Jurisdiction to issue SCN - discretion of the court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- Prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 28.06.2024, a show cause notice dated 13.04.2023 was issued to the Petitioner, to which, the Petitioner submitted its reply and it is only thereafter that the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 has been passed. The issue relating to the show cause notice being without jurisdiction is said to have been raised by the Petitioner while submitting his reply before the Joint Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order dated 28.06.2024. Once the Petitioner submitted to this show cause notice dated 13.04.2023 by filing its reply, though raising an objection that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction, in our considered opinion, the appropriate remedy available to the Petitioner is to invoke the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act for challenging the impugned order dated 28.06.2024.

  It is well established that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary, hence, ordinarily such a discretion should not be exercised by this Court, in case there is any other statutory and efficacious remedy available to the person invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court - The discretion in such a situation may be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in case there are violations of principles of natural justice or the decision under challenge has not been taken by the competent authority. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 could not have been passed by the Joint Commissioner.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1313
  

  Framing of an appropriate direction commanding the respondents to release the refunds - HELD THAT:- The sole ground on which the refund is sought to be contested is the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner that the Order-in-Appeal is not legally tenable - Since the order of 18 October 2022 has admittedly attained finality, the stand as taken cannot possibly be sustained. The claim of the petitioner for grant of refund is clearly merited. It would consequently be entitled to refund along with statutory interest.

  The instant writ petition is allowed - the respondents are directed to attend to the refund claim as made by the writ petitioner forthwith along with statutory interest as payable.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1312
  

  Suspension of registration of the petitioner - It is alleged that despite a response having been duly submitted on more than one occasion to the aforesaid notice, the respondents have failed to dispose of and conclude those proceedings - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the petitioner had admittedly and as far back as on 24 April 2023 as well as 22 November 2023 submitted its response to the impugned SCN. This was followed by a reminder which was submitted on 31 May 2024. Despite the above, the petitioner alleges that the respondents have failed to conclude the proceedings.

  Bearing in mind the statutory obligation which stands placed in terms of Rule 22, it is opined that the continued suspension of the registration of the petitioner is clearly unjustified.

  The writ petition is disposed off by directing the respondents to examine the replies dated 24 April 2023 and 22 November 2023 already submitted by the writ petitioner and dispose of the SCN proceedings within a period of three weeks from today.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1311
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of hearing not provided - jurisdiction to entertain the condone delay application - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, the petitioner, being unaware of the impugned order, has failed to file their appeal within the prescribed time limit. However, the reasons assigned by the petitioner for non-filing of appeal within the prescribed time appears to be genuine. Therefore, being satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner and also considering the submission made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner.

  The rejection order dated 09.07.2024 is set aside and the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority is hereby condoned - Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1310
  

  Cancellation of registration of petitioner - Non compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed - no proper reasons given in the SCN - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Neither the SCN nor the final order assign or record any reasons in support of the ultimate conclusion which has come to be drawn and recorded, namely, that the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 framed thereunder.

  The SCN is gloriously silent with respect to the provisions of the GST Act which are alleged to have been violated or infringed. The aforesaid position remained unaltered in the final order which too fails to provide any clue with respect to the provision of the statute which may have been violated or infringed.

  The impugned SCN dated 16 June 2023 and the impugned order of cancellation of registration dated 04 June 2023 is hereby quashed - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1309
  

  Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner with retrospective effect - closure of business - HELD THAT:- The order rejecting the application for cancellation of registration, the SCN as well as the final order, have failed to assign or record any substantive reasons in support of the ultimate conclusion. It has instead proceeded to reject the application for cancellation on the solitary ground that “the reply of the taxpayer has not been found satisfactory” and had simultaneously issued a SCN and a final order of cancellation of registration merely stating as follows:- “others”.

  In the absence of any reasoning adduced in the order rejecting the application for cancellation of registration, the SCN or the final order of cancellation of registration, the instant writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to cancel the GST registration of the petitioner with effect from 06 August 2024.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1308
  

  Classification of services rendered - intermediary services or not - refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) - HELD THAT:- An intermediary would be one who arranges or facilitates the supply of goods or services between two or more persons. The sample agreement which has been placed on our record clearly belies the view that was taken by the respondents in this regard. As is manifest from a reading of that agreement, the ITS was envisaged to be provided by the writ petitioner itself to the entity situate outside India. The petitioner was clearly not one which was facilitating the supply between two or more persons. It was itself directly engaged in the provision of supply. In view of the above, the foundational basis of the impugned orders itself is rendered unsustainable.

  The impugned orders do not rest on any material or evidence which could have been even remotely read as being suggestive of the petitioner being an intermediary as explained. The consistent stand of the petitioner had been that it was supplying service on a principal to principal basis. The respondents do not rest their decision on a finding that there was a tripartite agreement for the supply of services.

  Merely because the service was being provided to the holding company, the petitioner would not have been disentitled to a mark-up. In any case, it would clearly not be liable to be classified as an intermediary merely because such a mark-up had been obtained over and above the costs incurred.

  The impugned Order is set aside - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1307
  

  Retrospective cancellation of GST registration - adequate reasons provided for cancellation or not - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The decision rendered recently in Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr. [2024 (10) TMI 278 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is perused, where, while construing the provisions of Section 29 (2) and the power of the respondent to cancel with retrospective effect, it is held 'in light of an abject failure on the part of the authority to assign even rudimentary reasons for a retroactive cancellation, we find ourselves unable to sustain the order impugned.'

  It is additionally found that even the original show cause notice had not placed the respondent on notice of an intention to cancel the registration with retrospective effect.

  The impugned order of 27 September 2022 is quashed to the extent that it purports to take effect from 12 November 2019. The cancellation shall consequently come into effect from 09 September 2022 i.e. the date when the show cause notice had been issued - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1306
  

  Permission to file an affidavit in the Court for the purpose of removing the defect - cancellation of GST Registration of petitioner - HELD THAT:- In view of the consensus between the parties, the matter is covered by the order passed in WPMS No. 2285 of 2024 [2024 (9) TMI 904 - 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 tax and dues 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 1305
  

  Initiation of parallel proceedings despite the issuance of a comprehensive notice by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence - HELD THAT:- The respondents are restrained from taking further steps pursuant to the impugned SCN dated 24 May 2024 pertaining to the tax period of April 2019 to March 2020.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1304
  

  Cancellation of GST registration - appeal was preferred beyond the period of limitation - condonation of delay without there being any proper explanation - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that after service of the impugned order dated 19.1.2023, the appeal should have been preferred within limitation, but the appeal has been preferred beyond the limitation. Admittedly, the impugned order dated 19.1.2023 was received by the petitioner - Further, before this Court also, petitioners have failed to give any good ground for condonation of delay, therefore, this Court, under extra ordinary jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the impugned orders.

  The Apex Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT], has specifically held 'Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days' period.'

  Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned orders - petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (10) TMI 1303
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - failure to appear for personal hearing - discrepancies in returns filed for financial year 2018-2019 - HELD THAT:- According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the reminder notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to establish its case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and that it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits and in accordance with law.

  The orders impugned herein are set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration subject to the payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the credit of Cancer Institute (Regional Cancer Centre), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020 for delay in approaching this Court, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

1 ....151617181920212223........ 695