|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 521 to 540 of 13902 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1005
Refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) accrued to the petitioner under the Value Added Tax (VAT) regime - Transition to GST regime - petitioner’s contention based on Section 143(8)(b) is that when an assessment is carried out and a refund is ordered then necessarily, the same shall be refunded to the assesee as per clause (8)(b) of Section 142 - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (a) of Section 18 is the enabling provision, which benefit is reflected in the Transitional Provisions under Section 140, permitting a business registered under the VAT provisions; in which regime too there existed ITC, to carry forward that credit to be availed as set off under the GST regime for the inputs held in stock; whether it be in the semi-finished or finished form, as on the date the business becomes liable to pay tax under the GST regime. Sub-section (2) prohibits any credit to be availed after the expiry of one year from the date of issue of tax invoice relating to such supply.
As far as the transitional claims are concerned there is a further limitation prescribed as on 27.12.2017 and then of course, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s directions there was a window of two months provided. Unless the claim is made in Form GSTR TRAN-1 within the time initially provided or that provided later, to get over the teething problems, there can be no claim raised even for credit of input tax and its set off and never of a refund in cash.
There are no reason to interfere with the order rejecting the claim for refund, which refund in any event is not applicable, and the petitioner can only claim ITC as set-off against the output tax.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1004
Challenge to order passed against a deceased person - Section 93 of the CGST/SGST Act - HELD THAT:- Since Ext.P3 seems to be issued against a deceased person, the said order is a nullity. It may be true that the provisions of Section 93 of the CGST/SGST Acts permit the continuance of proceedings against the legal heirs of a deceased person, in a case where the business has been discontinued. However, the said provision does not authorize the continuance and culmination of proceedings against a deceased person. Therefore, Ext.P3 order is a nullity as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
This writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 is quashed. The respondent is permitted to continue with the proceedings against the legal heirs of late Santhamma T.
-
2024 (10) TMI 970
Withdrawal of the Budgetary Support Scheme by SO 239 dated 16-07-2021 - violation of doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation - violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in Brahmputra Mettalics [2020 (12) TMI 1241 - SUPREME COURT] has also drawn distinction between the doctrine of promissory estoppel and doctrine of legitimate expectation. The doctrine of legitimate expectations is founded on the principles of fairness in government dealings and would come into play if a public body leads an individual to believe that they will be a recipient of a substantive benefit. So far as difference between the doctrine of promissory estoppel and doctrine of legitimate expectation under English law is concerned; under English law the doctrine of legitimate expectation initially developed in the context of public law as an analogy to the doctrine of promissory estoppel found in private law. Another difference is that the legitimate expectation can constitute a cause of action whereas the doctrine of promissory estoppel can only be used as a shield. The scope of legitimate expectation is wider than the promissory estoppel because it not only takes into consideration a promise made by a public body but also official promise, as well.
For invoking the principle of promissory estoppel there has to be a clear and unequivocal promise and on that basis the party concerned must have acted to its prejudice, whereas the basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation is in reasonableness and fairness. True it is that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and can be used when the denial of legitimate expectation leads to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
While the benefit of CST was being extended on year to year basis awaiting implementation of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST) and adoption of GST regime, the GST regime came to be adopted by the State with effect from 08-07-2017 and with that the entire tax structure in the State underwent a change. It was no longer possible to continue with the exemption from payment of GST as the scheme was now replaced by IGST payable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax, 2017. However, with a view to continue supporting the entrepreneurs, who had established their industrial units in the State, the Government came up with a Budgetary Support Scheme which was promulgated vide SRO 431 of 2018 dated 25-09-2018. Initially it was envisaged in the scheme that the benefit of budgetary support to the manufacturing units in the shape of IGST shall be continued till 31-03-2026.
It is thus clear that under the Budgetary Support Scheme envisaged under SRO 431 of 2018, the budgetary support was in the shape of reimbursement of IGST paid under IGST Act, 2017 in respect of interstate supplies, whereas under the Turnover Incentive Scheme 2021, the incentive was to be calculated on the gross turnover of the Industrial Unit subject, of course, to the maximum provided under clause 7. The incentive in terms of percentage of gross turnover of Industrial Unit would include the incentive on the taxable turnover with respect to interstate supplies made by the industrial unit under IGST Act as well - overlapping of the Turnover Incentive Scheme 2021 and the Budgetary Support Scheme promulgated by SRO 431 of 2018. It is with a view to set the record straight and also to remove the ambiguity, the impugned SO 239 dated 16-07-2021 was issued and the Budgetary Support Scheme envisaged under SRO 431 of 2018 was withdrawn with effect from 01-04-2021 i.e. with effect from the date the Turnover Incentive Scheme came into force.
The petitioners are not deprived of the incentives but have been extended the same in different form. In the absence of any prejudice pleaded by the petitioners, the action of the respondents, replacing the Budgetary Support Scheme by the other scheme, both aimed at providing incentives to the industrial units like the petitioners, cannot be said to be irrational, unreasonable or arbitrary. Firstly, there is nothing in the conduct exhibited by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to raise any legitimate expectation in the petitioners and, secondly, even if it were there, the Government has not acted arbitrarily, unjustly or in an unfair manner. The benefit of incentives in the shape of reimbursement paid under IGST Act, 2017 is continued to be paid now under the Turnover Incentive Scheme 2021. It is only the mode and manner which has been changed. The Turnover Incentive Scheme 2021 came into operation with effect from 01-04-2021 and, therefore, it was necessary to do away with the Budgetary Support Scheme promulgated vide SRO N431 of 2018. It is because of this reason the impugned SO was issued and given effect from 01-04-2021.
Thus, both the doctrines i.e. doctrine of promissory estoppel and the doctrine of legitimate expectations are not attracted nor do we find issuance of the impugned SO in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 969
Value of supply of services provided by the petitioner company to the state government - rate of tax applicable on the value of supply - components to be included in calculation of the percentage of value of goods in the total value of composite supply for the purpose of N/N. 2/2018–Central Tax (Rate) - HELD THAT:- Considering the prima facie case made out by the petitioner, especially considering the advance ruling, however, at the same time noting that a show cause has been issued, the petitioner is entitled to a limited interim protection.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to respond to the aforesaid show cause dated 1st/3rd August, 2024. Taking into consideration the fact that the writ petition has been affirmed on 30th August, 2024, and since, the time to file response has already expired, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file its response within a period of thirty days from date.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 968
Challenge to notice in Form GST ASMT-10 and consequential recovery notice in FORM GST DRC-13 - failure to to file the returns in time as is contemplated under Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The relief sought for in this writ petition is without any basis. The petitioner ought to have filed a writ petition for a mandamus to direct the respondents to adjudicate the issue as to whether the petitioner indeed liable to interest under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017.
This writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, justifying their stand as to how the interest is payable particularly when the amounts were credited to the accounts of the Government in the petitioner's Electronic Cash Ledger/Electronic Cash Register.
-
2024 (10) TMI 967
Challenge to order and consequential rectification order - discrepancies on scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of the Act - opprotunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case on hand there was an error in filing GST 3B Returns that the Petitioner had inadvertently claimed Input Tax in ' RCM' Column instead of 'All other ITC Column' and the said aspect was stated by the Petitioner in its reply dated 05.09.2023, but the 1st Respondent had not considered the reply filed by the Petitioner had passed the impugned orders and that apart a sum of Rs. 2,99,000/- have been recovered for the tax liability of Rs. 2,33,000/-. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders dated 27.12.2023 and 12.03.2024 are liable to be set aside.
The orders impugned herein is set aside - Considering the fact that the impugned order itself has been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is lifted. As a sequel, 2nd respondent is directed to release the attachment on the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon the production of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 966
Dismissal of appeal on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit envisaged under Section 107 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that neither the provisions of Section 107(6)(a) nor of Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act would be attracted in Cases where the Assessee deposits the entire amount while challenging/disputing the same, however, the same amount shall be treated to be sufficient for the purpose of hearing the Appeal without insisting on pre-deposit. The petitioner in the present case having already deposited the entire amount, though in dispute, it needs not be further asked to deposit amount either in terms of Section 107(6)(a) or 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act.
The orders dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for allowing its Appeal to be heard on merits and insisting on pre-deposit, is set aside with a further direction to the respondents to decide the Appeal expeditiously on merits.
The Writ Petition is allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 965
Challenge to SCN along with summary notice in Form GST DRC-01 - misclassification of two-wheeler seats under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9401 instead of CTH 8714 - short payment of GST - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- This Court records the submission of the petitioner to the extent as follows that 'the deposit amount made by the petitioner as tax liability to the extent of Rs. 1,24,74,14,950/- shall not be claimed to be refunded. Further in the event, if the respondent is issuing separate show cause notices for six assessment years, the petitioner will not raise the issue of limitation.' However, the petitioner's intention is that only in the event of separate show cause notices being issued, the petitioner will pay the tax liability and avail the AMNESTY scheme, which is proposed to be launched by the respondent from November 2024 and would get the benefit of waiver of interest as well as penalty.
This Court sets aside the bunching of show cause notices issued for separate years, in the present case, the show cause notices may be split up regarding assessment years and separate notices may be issued for each and every assessment years separately in order to avail AMNESTY Scheme, which is proposed to be launched during November 2024.
The respondent is directed to issue separate show cause notices regarding six assessment years within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in which case, the petitioner shall not raise issue of limitation - The amount of Rs. 1,24,74,14,950/- crores already deposited by the petitioner, the petitioner shall not claim any refund of the said amount deposited with the respondent - the impugned show cause notice is set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 964
Levy of penalty u/s 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act - petitioner is a Local Authority and falls within the definition of “Local Authority” as provided in Clause (69) of Section 2 of CGST Act or not - HELD THAT:- Taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, wherein, the petitioner has paid the entire tax along with interest, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be granted one final opportunity to put forth its objections, which was not objected to by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
The impugned order dated 11.10.2023 is set aside. The impugned order shall be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner shall file their objections with regard to the levy of penalty within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such objections are filed within the stipulated period, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 963
Violation of principles of natural justice - Impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity - mismatch of input tax claim under Section 73(5) of the Act - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is seen that notice was issued by the respondent but however, the case was handled by his accountant who did not attend the personal hearing. On going through the impugned order, it is seen that a total tax liability of Rs. 5,89,004/- has been imposed against the petitioner. The petitioner has come up with a clear case that there are sufficient materials/documents to substantiate the defense of the petitioner to the effect that there was no mismatch of the input tax claim between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1.
This Court had an occasion to deal with a similar issue in SRI GANESA ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES [2024 (10) TMI 125 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. This Court wanted to afford an opportunity to the petitioner therein by putting the petitioner on terms. In order to maintain consistency, a similar order can be passed in this writ petition also. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the respondent in Reference Number ZD331123055367M dated 09.11.2023, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner will pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. If this condition is not complied with, the order passed by the respondent will stand automatically revived.
This writ petition is allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 962
Seeking transitional credit of the input tax available under the VAT Act - only contention of the respondent-State is that, there should be a refund application filed pursuant to Annexure- P/15 - HELD THAT:- There was a refund of Rs. 5,38,20,214/- which was sanctioned as payable to the petitioner, which also was unrelated to the input tax sought, for transitional credit in the GST period. The withholding of Rs. 32,29,195/- was only by reason of the additional demand, which would have been forfeited if the dis-allowance of the input tax claim was upheld.
Admittedly, the input tax claimed was allowed and withholding of the refund amounts, to that extent, has to be now disbursed as per sub-section (12) of Section 54 of the CGST Act. There is no requirement for filing of refund application, since already a major portion of the refund sanctioned under Annexure-P/15 has been refunded to the petitioner. The refund shall be made with interest as applicable within a period of one month from the date of uploading of the judgment.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 961
Rejection of Application for Revocation of Cancellation of GST Registration - discrepancies in the door number of the petitioner's place of business - HELD THAT:- Being satisfied with the explanation provided by the petitioner with regard to the discrepancy in the door number, this Court is inclined to revoke the cancellation of GST Registration of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 and the cancellation order dated 03.07.2024 are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the restoration of the GST registration is subject to and conditional upon fulfilling the conditions imposed - this writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 960
Issuance of notices u/s 61 of the JGST Act - excess of the power conferred upon Respondent-authority regarding scrutiny of returns - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to explain the reason which has been sought in the second show-cause, within two weeks and the authority concerned will consider the same in accordance with law and depending upon the conclusion, follow-up action be taken in view of the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act.
-
2024 (10) TMI 959
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - petitioner has not availed of the appellate remedy nor the Amnesty Scheme - SCN is not produced in the writ petition nor is there any averment that it was not received - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Section 30 of the GST Act also provides for an application for revocation of cancellation within thirty days of the order. Further, the Government had come out with an Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023 by which the registered dealers, whose registrations were cancelled, were permitted to restore their registration, on payment of all dues, between 31.03.2023 to 31.08.2023. The petitioner did not avail of such remedy also.
The petitioner was not a registered dealer after cancellation and there was no monitoring of his activities by the Department in the intervening period. There is no way to ascertain as to whether there was any transaction carried out during the said period. There is also the fact that the petitioner has not availed of the appellate remedy nor the Amnesty Scheme which was made applicable.
The writ petition would stand dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 958
Violation of principles of natural justice - challenge to impugned ex-parte order - wrongful availment of ITC - fake invoices - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 reveals that the purchase made by the petitioner found to be based on fake invoice and wrongly availed input tax credit and hence, by invoking Section 74, the respondent demanded the total tax liability of Rs. 38,361/- including penalty and interest. The respondent has taken into consideration the payment made by the petitioner towards CGST and SGST through DRC-03 dated 09.09.2017, however, since there was no payment of tax on the supply made by the supplier, the respondent treated the purchase made by the petitioner was on fake invoices and thereby, invoked Section 74 of the Act and rightly passed the impugned order after affording ample opportunity to the petitioner.
This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent. In fact, as against the impugned order passed by the respondent under Section 74 of the Act, the petitioner is having efficacious appeal remedy under Section 107 of the Act and without exhausting such remedy, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, which is not maintainable on this ground also.
This Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 957
Whether on filing an appeal the ten per cent of the due amounts are to be paid from the Electronic Cash Ledger or the Electronic Credit Ledger? - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that from N/N. 53/2023 dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs), which permitted filing of delayed appeals even beyond the period provided under Section 107 of the GST Act, that the stipulation was of paying an amount of 12.5 per cent of the amounts pending and due to be paid to the Department as against the 10 per cent prescribed by the statute. In the said Notification issued by the Central Government on the recommendation of the GST Council, it has been specifically stated that at least 20 per cent of the 12.5 per cent remaining due and payable should be paid from the Electronic Cash Ledger. Hence, even the GST Council understood the ten per cent to be enabled for payment through the Electronic Credit Ledger.
The order in appeal dated 14.01.2023 is set aside - the petition is allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 956
Seeking mandamus, certiorari, or appropriate writ for complete record disclosure and payment clearance - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, ground raised in the writ petition as also submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the laboratory items have been supplied by the petitioner in the month of March 2023 and amount is to be disbursed within 20 days from the date of receipt of articles under the supply order, without commenting anything on merits of claim of the petitioner, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit fresh representation before respondent No. 3 as also respondent No.2 who is also holding the ex-officio post of Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha and if such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 955
Demand to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks - petitioner was not aware of the notices - no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it appears that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice since it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the respondent.
The impugned order dated 23.03.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent with in a period of four weeks from today (02.09.2024) and the setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 954
Request to lift the bank attachment and de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner - petitioner was not aware of the notices - the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it appears that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice since it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 27.12.2023 passed by the 1st respondent.
The impugned order dated 27.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today (02.09.2024) and the setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 953
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not aware of the notices - impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it appears that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice since it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the respondent.
The impugned order dated 28.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today (02.09.2024) and the setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount - Petition is disposed off by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
