|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 13886 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1049
Seeking release of Currency of Rs. 58.00 Lacs resumed/seized illegally by the Respondents - it was held that the release of currency is allowed - HELD THAT:- Issue notice on the application seeking condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition.
There shall be stay of the impugned order in the meanwhile.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1048
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner, obtained by fraud - time limitation - petitioner’s application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration was dismissed having been preferred beyond the statutory time limit - no valid resaon in the SCN - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that the only reason notified to the petitioner for revoking the registration in the notice served upon him was to the effect that he had obtained registration by practising fraud. It is totally bereft of any circumstance indicating as to the manner in which the alleged fraud was perpetrated. Considering the fact that fraud is a serious allegation which has to be proved to the hilt, respondent no. 4 - Joint Commissioner would have been more cautious in issuing the show cause notice by giving all the details and circumstances which were considered for drawing the inference about alleged fraud. It would have extended an opportunity to the petitioner to deal with each of the circumstances individually and even collectively.
The order passed by respondent no. 4 - Joint Commissioner in the original proceeding and that of respondent no. 3 - Commissioner in the appeal are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent no. 4 - Joint Commissioner.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1047
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - challenge to order passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The factual matrix is such that the matter is squarely covered by a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another, [2024 (3) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'It has been passed in gross violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. The self imposed bar of alternative remedy cannot be applied in such facts. If applied, it would be of no real use. In fact, it would be counter productive to the interest of justice. Here, it may be noted, the appeal authority does not have the authority to remand the proceedings.'
The impugned order dated March 4, 2024 is quashed and set-aside with a direction given to the officer concerned to grant the petitioner another opportunity of filing a fresh reply and thereafter fix a date of hearing and pass a reasoned order. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from date.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1046
Competence of Appellate Authority to condone the delay in filing an appeal - condonation of delay beyond a period of one months after the expiry of three months’ period prescribed for filing appeal under Sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the Act of 2017 - exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- This petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for registration of his GST number within a period of seven days from today. The Competent Authority shall restore GST number of the petitioner immediately, subject to the completion of all requisite formalities. The petitioner shall file the returns and deposit the taxes and penalty along with interest within a period of seven days. In the event the needful is not done by the petitioner within stipulated period, this order shall cease to be in operation.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1045
Maintainability of petition - HELD THAT:- The order dated 3 July 2023 is set aside and the matter is restored before the Respondent No. 4. The Petitioner is granted two weeks time to file reply to the show cause notice dated 11 April 2023. After considering such reply and hearing the Petitioner, the show cause notice must be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within eight weeks of receiving the reply. All contentions of all parties are left open.
The Rule in this Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1044
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Appeal held as premature on the erroneous ground that no appealable order has been passed by any adjudicating authority - HELD THAT:- Once the Division Bench of this Court has directed the petitioner to avail of alternative remedy as provided under Section 107 of the Act, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the appellate authority.
The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 29.2.2024 is set aside
-
2024 (10) TMI 1043
Dismissal of petition - withdrawal of appeal without exhausting alternate remedies - lack of knowledge of the order - HELD THAT:- All the defences cannot be readily accepted. If the petitioner was confident of such defences, it is difficult to understand why the appeal was withdrawn. Suppose the petitioner, for the reasons attributable to himself, fails to avail of alternate remedies provided by the Statute. In that case, such a petitioner cannot insist on invoking this Court's writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, this petition cannot be entertained.
If the petitioner so chooses and, if so advised, applies for revocation of his withdrawal application and seeks restoration of the appeal, the Appellate Authority must dispose of such application in accordance with the law, considering that he is an individual and after considering the reasons for revocation - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1042
Challenge to SCN - wrongful availment or short payment of tax - levy of GST on printing services - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the show cause notice, one factor immediately strikes is there is no specific allegation with regard to wrongful availment or short payment of tax "by reason of fraud, or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax".
It is to be further noted that advance ruling authorities in the State of Karnataka, West Bengal and Chhattisgarh have also held that the activity of printing of books by publishers wherein the content is provided by NCERT or any similar educational board would amount to supply of goods and the fact that royalty is paid by such publishers would amount to the publishers playing the role of copy right holder as well as printer.
The only other ground of challenge from the side of the respondents is that this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is challenging the show cause notice. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner should reply to the show cause notice and proceed with the alternative remedy available with the petitioner.
It is to be noted that the Supreme Court in a catena of judgements has stated that interference at the show cause notice stage and/or when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, specially in cases of fiscal statutes that are self contained in nature is to be avoided by the High Courts. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Gauhati Carban Limited [2012 (11) TMI 885 - SUPREME COURT] held that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary power and should be exercised by the High Court only in those cases where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or where an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice causing prejudice to the petitioner.
The petitioner has established a prima facie case in its favour and the balance of convenience and inconvenience lies in favour of the petitioner for obtaining an order of injunction.
List this matter on December 17, 2024.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1041
Rejection of refund claim with interest - Interpretation of Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the affidavit and the position reflected the impugned order dated 18 August 2021 is set aside and the respondents are directed to refund to the petitioner the amounts claimed i.e., Rs. 9,26,570/- within four weeks from today.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1040
Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed as being beyond limitation - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act as well as the following the judgment in PARTY TIME HOSPITALITY PROP. SMT. PUNITA GUPTA LKO. [2023 (9) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], which is squarely covered to the facts of the present case, the impugned orders dated 21.02.2022 (Annexure-2) and 14.03.2024 (Annexure-1) are quashed giving liberty to the State to file a fresh demand order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing.
The authority shall pass order indicating the date of hearing as well as the time and place of the hearing in specific term and shall proceed accordingly in accordance with law - the writ petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1039
Violation of principles of natural justice - Rejection of Petitioner’s refund claim without bothering to grant the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing or even considering the Petitioner’s reply - HELD THAT:- In the show cause notice dated 29 December 2021, 15 days were granted to the Petitioner to submit a reply. Without any justification, this period was curtailed. In the curtailed period, the Petitioner did file a fairly detailed reply. That reply has not even been considered, and there is no justification for why no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioner despite the Petitioner specifically requesting the same. All this is sufficient to hold that there was a failure of natural justice in making the order dated 7 January 2022.
The appellate authority has not considered the challenge based on the failure of natural justice. Even the reasoning of the appellate authority does not align with the proposed reasons in the show cause notice. The Appellate Authority has addressed a point about which the Petitioner was never put to any notice in the show-cause notice served on the Petitioner. These are sufficient grounds to set aside the order dated 30 September 2022 made by the appellate authority.
The Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 7 January 2021 and the appellate authority’s order dated 30 September 2022 are set aside - matter is now remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to decide the Petitioner’s refund claim as expeditiously as possible - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1038
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-service of SCN - violation of natural justice principles - HELD THAT:- It appears that a show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal and subsequent to the same, the order impugned was passed under Section 73 of the Act.
Once the registration has been cancelled, the petitioner is not obligated to check GST portal. The mode of service of any show cause notice has to be by way of alternative means to the petitioner.
There has been violation of the principle of natural justice, and accordingly, the impugned order dated December 26, 2023 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The department shall be at liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and act in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1037
Challenge to order passed by the respondent No.2 u/s 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The factual matrix is such that the matter is squarely covered by a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another [2024 (3) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], where it was held that 'before any adverse order passed in an adjudication proceeding, personal hearing must be offered to the noticee. If the noticee chooses to waive that right, occasion may arise with the adjudicating authority, (in those facts), to proceed to deal with the case on merits, ex-parte. Also, another situation may exist where even after grant of such opportunity of personal hearing, the noticee fails to avail the same. Leaving such situations apart, we cannot allow a practice to arise or exist where opportunity of personal hearing may be denied to a person facing adjudication proceedings.'
Upon a perusal of record, it appears that the factual matrix is very similar to one in Mahaveer Trading Company's case - there are no reason to take a different stand.
The impugned order dated 26.8.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sector-13, State Tax, Chetganj, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh (Respondent No.2) is quashed and set-aside with a direction given to the officer concerned to grant the petitioner another opportunity of filing a fresh reply and thereafter fix a date of hearing and pass a reasoned order - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1036
Challenge to adjudication order - blocking the Petitioner's credit ledger - no personal hearing was granted - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is hardly any discussion and in any event, there are no reasons to sustain the findings. As noted earlier, the Petitioner had filed a fairly detailed response to the show cause notice. Most of the contentions raised in the response have not been addressed or considered. Simply stating that the adjudicating officer finds that the demand or interest is recoverable does not amount to giving any reasons. Furnishing reasons is now accepted as one of the essential concomitants of the principles of natural justice and fair play. It is only based on reasons that the Appellate Authority can discern the basis for the decision that may be appealed against. An order bereft of reasons renders the right to appeal, which is a valuable right, nugatory.
The impugned order contains no reasons but only conclusions. To say that “I find that the tax, interest, or penalty is payable” is merely an ipse dixit. The impugned order neither discusses the Petitioner’s response nor gives any independent reasons supporting the conclusion or finding. The impugned order is unreasoned and non-speaking. Such orders cannot be sustained.
The impugned order dated 03 July 2023 is set aside on the above short ground. The matter is remanded to the 4th Respondent for fresh adjudication following the law. The 4th Respondent must hear the Petitioner and pass a speaking order within six weeks from today - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1035
Short payment of the GST - seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to ITC and in the alternative for refund of Rs.3 Crore, which were paid under protest - HELD THAT:- When it is apparently a matter wherein the petitioner either was made to deposit or had deposited the money even before adjudication of its liability to pay the tax, such payment cannot be treated as a voluntary one; more so, when it was made on the very date when the petitioner’s premises was visited by the revenue officials.
The respondent – CGST shall forthwith refund the amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- to the petitioner - If the amount is not refunded within two weeks, it shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum - The writ petition is allowed partly.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1034
Provisional attachment of bank account maintained by it in exercise of powers conferred by Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - wrongful availment of of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- Bearing in mind the nature of allegations which stand levelled against the petitioner and stand reflected in the impugned order, the end of justice would merit the petitioner being accorded the liberty to move and seek lifting of the provisional attachment in terms of Rule 159.
The writ petition is disposed off by permitting the writ petitioner to move in terms of Rule 159 within a period of one week from today. Any application for revocation of provisional attachment so made may be examined and disposed of in accordance with law and preferably within a period two weeks therefrom.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1033
Auction of property for recovery of taxes due from their vendor - petitioners contends that the property in question had been purchased, by way of registered deeds of sale and that the said property cannot be auctioned for recovery of the dues of the vendor - Sham transactions - HELD THAT:- Section 81 of the Act merely provides for declaration of certain transactions to be void transactions with certain safeguards embedded in the proviso. However, there is no machinery available for determination of the question as to whether the transactions in question are sham transactions falling within the ambit of Section 81 of the Act.
Prima facie, this Court, subject to the contentions that may be raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, is of the opinion that the provisions of Section 81 of the Act cannot be pressed into service unless there is a finding as to the nature of the transactions in question by a competent authority, authorized under the Act or the Rules.
There shall be stay of all further proceedings, in pursuance to the notice, dated 26.06.2024, attaching immovable properties belonging to the petitioners - Post on 23.10.2024.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1032
Denial of input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts - constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the directions issued by this Court in M. Trade Links [2024 (6) TMI 288 - KERALA HIGH COURT], this writ petition can be disposed of, setting aside Ext. P3 assessment order to the extent that it denied input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing that the claim of the petitioner be considered in terms of the directions issued by this Court in M. Trade Links and also taking note of the provision of Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST Acts.
Exts.P3 is set aside to the extent that it denies input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Act and it is directed that benefit of the directions contained in the judgment in M.Trade Links shall also be extended to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1031
Challenge to Circular No. 212/6/2024-GST dated 26 June 2024 [Impugned Circular] issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs [CBIC] as well as the Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 02 August 2024 - guarantee commission and the service tax liability raised in connection therewith - discounts and Section 15 (3) (b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Insofar as the aspect of guarantee commission is concerned, the allegations noted which stand levelled in the impugned SCN and where the respondents view a failure on the part of the writ petitioner to discharge perceived GST liabilities considering commission income @ 0.75% of the corporate guarantee which may have been extended.
Attention drawn to RBI Circular No. RBI/2021-22/121 dated 09 November 2021 in terms of which the Central Bank itself restrains parties from obtaining consideration by way of commission in respect of guarantees of the genre with which are concerned.
While the respondents may continue with the proceedings forming part of the impugned SCN dated 02 August 2024, they shall desist from ruling on the issues pertaining to discounts and Section 15 (3) (b) as well as guarantee commission - Let the writ petition be called again on 09.01.2025.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1030
Challenge to SCN u/s 74(1) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - validity of circular related to GST exemption on annuity payments for road construction - invocation of Section 74 of the Act - HELD THAT:- Ordinarily, in relation to a challenge to the show cause notice, no interference is called for. However, taking note of the fact that a jurisdictional issue has been raised, the matter may require further consideration. However, since, the parties submit that time to respond to the show cause notice has already expired, at this stage it would be prudent to permit the petitioners to respond to the show cause notice. Accordingly, time to respond to the show cause notice is extended till 4th November 2024.
List this matter under the same heading for further consideration on 12th November 2024.
............
|
9911796707
