|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 581 to 600 of 13912 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 780
Rejection of refund of Goods and Services Tax (GST) filed u/s 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - It is stated by the petitioner that the impugned refund rejection order was decided without considering the submissions of the petitioner and without granting it any opportunity of personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The present petition is amongst a batch of petitions that were heard together [being W.P.(C) No.1298/2023, W.P.(C) No.1299/2023 and W.P.(C) No.1300/2023] and W.P.(C) No.1298/2023 was heard as the lead matter. The questions raised in the present petition are covered by the decision rendered today in [2024 (5) TMI 177 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
Matter remanded to the appropriate authority for consideration afresh - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 779
Classification of goods - applicable rate of GST - Compensation Cess - Tobacco pre-mixed with lime - HELD THAT:- Under N/N. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) no definition of manufactured or unmanufactured tobacco has been provided and accordingly we have to mainly rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Court and the Tribunals decisions in the matter. There is no doubt that chewing tobacco may be both manufactured and unmanufactured. The difference between the manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco is dependent on the process being undertaken to prepare the product. In the present case the process being undertaken by the Appellant involves mixing of Lime paste in raw cut tobacco, evaporation of the water content from the said tobacco mixed with lime paste, addition of aroma, menthol and moisturizer.
Reliance placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the State of Madras Vs Bell mark Tobacco Company [1966 (10) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Court that cumulative effect of various processes to which Tobacco was subjected, before it was sold, amount to the manufacturing process.
In the instant case that mixing lime and other ingredients with the tobacco leaves would result into emergence of a new product with distinct name and character. Thus, it is evident that the raw material undergoes a set of processes and emerges as a distinct product which makes it marketable/consumable for the chewing needs. Therefore, the product to be supplied by the applicant is “manufactured tobacco product for chewing'. Once, it is decided that the product is 'manufactured chewing tobacco', the classification of the product merit under CTH 2403 99 10 which specifies 'chewing tobacco' under the head “2403-0ther manufactured tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes.
Thus, the product to be supplied by the applicant is manufactured tobacco classifiable under 24039910.
Since it has been concluded that the product to be supplied by the applicant is classifiable under HSN 24039910 (Chewing Tobacco without Lime Tube), the applicable rate of GST Compensation Cess in term of Serial No.26 of [Notification No. 1/2017-Compensation cess (R) dated 28.06.20171 is 160% - the product (i.e. tobacco pre-mixed with lime) to be supplied by applicant is classifiable under HSN24039910 (Chewing Tobacco without Lime Tube). The rate of GST is 28% and IGST-28%) and that of Compensation Cess is 160%.
-
2024 (10) TMI 771
Levy of GST - value of loan for which guarantee is given needs to be divided equally amongst the relevant years of guarantee - reverse charge mechanism - 1% of total value of loan in first year - 1% of only remaining outstanding value of loan at beginning of each subsequent year - continuing guarantee.
Whether GST under reverse charge mechanism on issuance of corporate guarantee is payable one-time or on periodical basis, considering that the guarantee has been issued only once and is valid for specified period of time without requirement of any periodical renewal in terms of Rule 28 (2) of the CGST Rules? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the Corporate Guarantee is received by the Applicant i.e. subsidiary company from Foreign Group Companies in respect of loan taken from banks and financial institution for which Foreign Company does not charge any consideration from the Applicant leading to the conclusion that it is import of service received by the Applicant.
Since in the instant case, as no consideration has been charged by the Associated Enterprises from the Applicant and where the supplier of service is located outside India, the time of supply shall be the date of entry in the books of account of the recipient of supply i.e. Indian subsidiary and the GST liability is to paid by the Applicant at one time basis at the time of supply.
If the GST under RCM is to be paid on periodical basis, then in order to determine the value of supply, whether the value of loan is to be divided equally amongst the relevant years of guarantee and GST is to be paid considering 1% of such divided deemed value each year or 1% of only remaining outstanding value of loan at the beginning of each subsequent year in term of Rule 28 (2) of the CGST Rules 2017? - HELD THAT:- If the guarantor executes the contract of guarantee without consideration, in the GST regime prior to 26.10.2023, for the benefit of a related party, GST would be payable on the basis of the valuation mechanisms as per Rule 28 (1) of RGST/CGST rules 2017 at the time of execution of the contract - GST under reverse charge mechanism is payable on 1% of deemed total value of loan after guarantees executed after 26-10-2023 as per rule 28 (2) of RGST/CGST rules 2017 on one time basis at the time of execution of the contract, if the guarantor executes the contract of guarantee without consideration, for the benefit of a related party in the GST regime post 26.10.2023.
-
2024 (10) TMI 770
Levy of GST on the Mining Lease payments (applicability of GST on the Royalty payment of Mining Lease to Government of Rajasthan under Reverse Charge Mechanism) - payment of upfront Payments as per the Tender Documents which are paid in installments much before issuing LOI and after issuing LOI but before entering in to the Lease Agreement - State of Telangana or to apply for registration in the State of Rajasthan and pay GST - applicable rate of GST - eligibility of Input Tax Credit.
Whether the applicant is liable any GST on the Mining Lease payments (applicability of GST on the Royalty payment of Mining Lease to Government of Rajasthan under Reverse Charge Mechanism)? - HELD THAT:- Section 9 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 provides that the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify categories of supply of goods or services or both, the tax on which shall be paid on reverse charge basis by the recipient of such goods or services or both and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such recipient as if he is the person liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such goods or services or both - the Applicant is liable to pay GST on Mining Lease Payments including Royalty, to be paid to the Govt. of Rajasthan under RCM.
If the applicant is liable to pay GST on the above, what will be the applicable rate of GST? - HELD THAT:- The Applicant is liable to pay GST @ 18% (SGST 9% & CGST 9%).
If GST is applicable, whether the applicant is liable to pay GST on the payment of Upfront Payments as per the Tender Documents which are paid in installments much before issuing LOI and after issuing LOI but before entering in to the Lease Agreement? - HELD THAT:- The Applicant is of the opinion that payment of royalty amount to the Government will be coming in to effect only after entering in to the Mining Lease Agreement with the Government of Rajasthan. The lessor and lesee relationship will be coming into effect only after entering the lease agreement. The payments made as per the conditions in the Tender Documents prior to issue of Letter of Intent in the capacity of Preferred Bidder and payment made after issue of LOI but before entering into the Mining Lease agreement as Successful Bidder cannot be considered as Advance payments for supply of services and GST is not liable to be paid at the time of making payment by considering the same as Advance payments for supply of services.
The advance deposit money is received only as security. Generally, it is not used by the supplier in the course of supply Of goods or services. It is forfeited in case of violations of terms and conditions as mentioned in tender document. As per point 13.1 of Tender Document, the upfront payment paid by the Successful Bidder shall be adjusted in full at the earliest against the amount to be paid under sub-rule (3) of rule 8 of Auction Rules on commencement of production of mineral which shows that advance payment made by the Applicant shall be adjusted towards future payments to be made by them. Hence Section 2 (31) of CGST Act, 2017 is not applicable in the instant case.
The Applicant is liable to pay GST on the upfront payments made to the State Govt. under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) in term of Serial No.5 of Notification No. 13/20317-CetraI Rate Dated 28.06.2017.
lf GST is applicable, whether the applicant can pay GST from the State of Telangana or to apply for registration in the State of Rajasthan and pay GST. (v) Whether the GST paid is eligible to be claimed as Input Tax Credit or not? - HELD THAT:- The tax payable under the provisions of sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 9 is included in input tax and the credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business and the said amount shall be credited to the electronic credit ledger and so the applicant is eligible to avail ITC of GST paid by them under RCM subjected to fulfilment of conditions laid down under section 16 of CGST Act, 2017.
-
2024 (10) TMI 717
Power of CBIC to issue circular and delegate the functions of 'Proper officer' to issue Audit Report - it was held by High Court that 'no case is made out to strike down the impugned circulars or the impugned show cause notices inter alia on the ground that such show cause notices were issued by the officers who were not the “proper officers” as defined under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act' - HELD THAT:- Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
List the Special Leave Petition on 14 August 2024.
-
2024 (10) TMI 716
Violation of principles of natural justice and fair play - impugned order made without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- In this case, the show cause notice dated 10 April 2023 required the petitioner to file a response within 30 days. The notice clearly indicates the date, timing, and venue of the personal hearing. On 21 June 2023, the Petitioner sought time to file a reply. The defence that the show cause notice was not uploaded on the petitioner’s designated portal is not convincing. There was undoubtedly some delay in responding to the show cause notice on the petitioner's part.
Though the reason for the show cause notice not being uploaded on the petitioner’s portal is not very convincing, given the fact that the impugned order was made or digitally signed only on 25 June 2023, the petitioner deserves to be granted an opportunity of hearing subject to the petitioner paying costs. This opportunity would address the argument about natural justice without prejudicing the revenue’s interests disproportionately.
The reply dated 21 June 2023 does not appear to be on merits, but the reply refers to the show cause notice not being uploaded to the petitioner’s designated portal. Accordingly, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/-, the petitioner is granted two weeks to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 10 April 2023.
After such a reply is filed, the 4th respondent should dispose of the show cause notice dated 10 April 2023 after considering the reply and hearing the petitioner. The show cause notice must be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within eight weeks of receiving the reply if the same is filed.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 715
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits - petitioner was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order - 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 relates to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. It is also evident that such tax proposal was confirmed because the tax payer did not file objections to the show cause notice. In view of the assertion that the petitioner could not participate in proceedings on account of being unaware of the same, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order dated 23.12.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 714
Levy of GST on the charges paid to the Railways on behalf of Operator and those charges were recovered from the Operator - scope of supply - pure agent service or not - If charges paid to the Railways on behalf of Operator were not come under the scope of the pure agent or liable to be tax then what will be the tax Rate?
Scope of supply - Whether GST is required to be paid on the charges paid to Railways on behalf of operator and those charges recovered from operator? - HELD THAT:- As per Agreement entered between Applicant and Indian Railways, the later has supplied various services to the Applicant wherein some of them are taxable and Indian Railways has not entered any Agreement with the operator at all, As the Applicant being recipient of service from the Indian Railways hence required to pay the GST on the charges paid to the Indian Railways and Applicant has sub-late this task to the operator for smooth operation Of Palace On Wheels (POW), operator is supposed to pay the charges to the Applicant and not Indian Railways along with GST as per terms and conditions Of Agreement dated 28.06.2023 entered between them (Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and the operator).
Why not the said charges were come under the scope of the pure agent? - HELD THAT:- A pure agent is a registered taxable person who liaises between other suppliers on behalf of his client. Under this concept, While providing services to the client, he also undertakes to receive other ancillary services from other service providers, and incurs expenditure on behalf Of his client - Since the Applicant has not procured any additional service, there is no question of holding to the title of service and therefore they cannot use any service for their own interest.
Since none of the condition of Pure Agent enumerated in a rule 33 of CGST Rule,2017is met, the Applicant cannot act as Pure Agent. As they are not Pure Agent, they are required to pay GST on the taxable supply received from Indian Railways.
lf charges paid to the Railways on behalf of Operator were not come under the scope of the pure agent or liable to be tax then what will be the tax Rate? - HELD THAT:- Yes, the charges are paid to the Indian Railways by the Applicant and not operator and therefore are leviable to GST as per the rate given below:
1. Registration Fee @ 18%
2. Haulage Charges @ 5%
3. Right to Use (RU) @ 18%
4. Stabling Charges @ 18%
5. Station User Fee @ 5%
6. Cancellation Charges @ 5%
7. Security Deposit - Though no GST is leviable on this amount but if it is adjusted against any aforesaid charge, then GST will be charged according to that charges.
-
2024 (10) TMI 671
Challenge to impugned summary order - order passed without there being any notice issued in Form DRC-01 as provided under the GST Rules - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Admittedly in facts of the case respondent authorities did not serve any show cause notice upon the petitioner and straightaway issued the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 which does not contain any reasons.
Thus, without going into the merits of the matter, the impugned summary order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 11.1.2019 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for de novo adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as fresh order is required to be passed in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 670
Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - necessary GST IT 02 form was not filed by its transferor electronically but only manually - breach of provisions of Section 18 (3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules - Jurisdiction and validity of the show cause notice regarding the non-electronic filing of Form GST ITC-02 - HELD THAT:- Section 18 (3) of the CGST Act provides that where there is a change in the constitution of a registered person on account of sale, merger, demerger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of the business with the specific provisions for transfer of liabilities, the said registered person shall be allowed to transfer the input tax credit which remains unutilised in his electronic credit ledger to such sold, merged, demerged, amalgamated, leased or transferred business in such manner as may be prescribed.
The impugned show cause notice, after referring to Section 18 (3) of the CGST Act and Rule 41 (1) of the CGST Rules, alleges that the Petitioner has contravened the said two provisions since it has availed and utilised credit of Rs. 18,30,58,995/- (including Rs. 74,06,395/- as IGST, Rs. 15,74,90,681/- as CGST and Rs. 1,81,61,919/- as SGST) for payment of tax liability - The allegation in the impugned show cause notice might have had some substance if it had been the Respondents' case that its common portal was fully functional and TDN or the Petitioners could file Form GST ITC-02 electronically on the common portal. However, it was conceded that the GST portal was nascent during the relevant time, and GST ITC-02 was not available for filing electronically. Thus, neither the Petitioner nor TDN could be faulted for not filing Form GST ITC-02 electronically on the department’s common portal. The record establishes, and in any event, it was not disputed, that TDN or the Petitioner couldn't file Form GST ITC-02 on the department’s common portal during the relevant period because of the functionality issues relating to such a common portal.
The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Pacific Industries Ltd Vs. Union of India [2022 (3) TMI 1304 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] noted that though the learned counsel representing the Respondents – GST Department, vehemently and fervently opposed the Petitioner’s contention, he was not in a position to dispute the fact that Form GST ITC-02A was not available on the GSTN Portal within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of registration of the Petitioner’s new business vertical and hence, the Petitioner was genuinely and bona fide prevented from uploading the same. No dispute was raised about the Petitioner manually submitting the form to the Deputy Commissioner within 30 days.
In Savita Oil Technologies Ltd and Savita Polymers Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Ors. [2023 (7) TMI 877 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the Coordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us (Jitendra Jain, J) was a member, the Petitioner was prevented from filing an Appeal against intimations issued in Form DRC-05 because the electronic portal had not made a provision for filing an appeal against an intimation issued in Form DRC-05. The Coordinate Bench noted that an appeal statutorily lay against such intimations issued in Form DRC-05. Therefore, merely because the electronic portal does not make a provision for filing of an appeal against an intimation issued in Form DRC-05, the Petitioners cannot be faulted, and for such technical reason, it cannot be countenanced that a statutory right of appeal available to the Petitioners is rendered otiose.
Accordingly, this Court directed that until an appropriate provision is made for acceptance of such appeal electronically, filing of such appeal should be permitted manually. Again, even this decision is an authority for the proposition that the technicalities, mainly when not the party but the department creates them, should not be put forth by the department to defeat the statutory rights and entitlement of the parties.
Based on the facts on record and the decided cases referred to above in the case of this very Petitioner, the contention that the impugned show cause notice ought not to have been issued to the Petitioner, is accepted. The Respondents were duty-bound to take cognisance of the decisions of the Allahabad, Gujarat, and Delhi High Courts in dealing with almost identical issues concerning this Petitioner.
Tthe impugned show cause notice dated 17 August 2023 is set aside - the Respondents is directed to consider, according to law, the manually filed forms by the TDN as expeditiously as possible.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 669
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order has been made without hearing the Petitioner - breach of the provisions of Section 75 (4) of the MGST Act - HELD THAT:- Section 75 (4) of the MGST Act contemplates the opportunity of hearing where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The Petitioner, in this case, had requested in writing an opportunity for a hearing. In any event, the impugned order is adverse to the interest of the Petitioner. On both these counts, the impugned order should have been preceded by an opportunity of hearing. On this short ground, the impugned order must be set aside.
In Kuehne Nagel Private Limited [2023 (12) TMI 512 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Hydro Pneumatic Accessories India Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (12) TMI 666 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], Coordinate Benches of this Court, in almost identical circumstances, have interfered with orders that were made without compliance with the requirement of Section 75 (4) of the MGST Act. Even in those cases, no opportunity for a hearing was granted to the Petitioners. This was considered sufficient to set aside the orders impugned in those Petitions and for a remand to make fresh orders after hearing the Petitioners.
The impugned order dated 17 January 2024 is quashed and set aside - the recovery notice dated 6 September 2024 based upon the impugned order will not survive - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 668
Challenge to proceedings of the respondent passed u/s 73 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 2017 - discrepancy in between Forms GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 - petitioner is not aware about the proceedings initiated by the respondent and that the entire communication has been sent only through portal - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is seen that notice was issued by the respondent. However, the petitioner did not receive the same. On going through the impugned order, it is seen that a total liability of Rs. 10.72 lakhs towards tax, interest and penalty has been imposed on 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 between the outward supplies turnover declared in GSTR - 1 and the outward supplies arrived in GSTR - 3B.
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.
The impugned order passed by the respondent in Reference No. ZD330424200278R/2018- 19 dated 25.4.2024 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for a fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of the total demand before the respondent within a period of four weeks from today - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 667
Cancellation of GST Licence of the petitioner - cancellation on the ground that the petitioner had not paid tax due - HELD THAT:- Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of instructions, that the petitioner had filed returns, and paid the tax as well as interest, the respondent no. 3 is directed to take steps for renewing the GST Licence of the petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of communication of this order, and if any other amount is due, the petitioner should be communicated the same, which the petitioner shall pay within a period of seven days from its communication.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 666
Condonation of delay in filing application - Dismissal of appeal on the ground of suppression of material facts - cancellation of GST registration - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arunima Baruah [2007 (4) TMI 695 - SUPREME COURT] observed that to enable the Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, the suppression must be of material fact and it has been further indicated that material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief.
It appears that learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in case, the said fact was brought to the notice of the Court, the order dated 22.02.2024 ordering for the verification of premises by the Authorities would not have been passed. Though it is no doubt true that the above fact of a fresh registration was relevant in view of the order of verification passed by the learned Single Judge, the fact of said registration cannot be said to be material so as to affect the determination of the lis between the parties.
The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 665
Principles of natural justice - petitioner seeks one opportunity to explain the case - mismatch between the Return in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the petitioner may have a case on merits and therefore, discretion is exercised partly in favour of the petitioner by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax to the credit of the first respondent from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notices that preceded the impugned order - Subject to the petitioner depositing the amount, the petitioner's Bank Account shall be de-freezed or in alternative the aforesaid amount shall be recovered as pre-deposit from the petitioner's Bank Account - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 610
Revovation of voluntary application for cancellation of registration accepted by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Authority - subsequent cancellation of registration with retrospective effect - HELD THAT:- The CGST Authorities accepted the Petitioner's application for registration cancellation with effect from 8th May 2023. Since the orders revocating registration cancellation on the Petitioner’s application were passed contrary to the principles of natural justice, all the subsequent proceedings initiated thereafter, which are consequential, also have to be quashed.
The Petitioner should have checked his email when the Respondent sent the show cause notice dated 26 February 2024, which the Petitioner has submitted has been inadvertently overlooked. The Petitioner's conduct not approved on this count.
The learned counsel for the respondents expressed an apprehension that the petitioner may utilise the ITC to its credit up to 8 May 2023 and try to render the further proceedings infructuous. In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner will have to be restrained from utilising this ITC for some reasonable period during which the respondents would have to conclude their proceedings. This would balance the interests of both the parties.
The Orders dated 20 February 2024, 8 March 2024 and 9 May 2024 passed by CGST Authorities are quashed and set aside - The Position as of 8 May 2023 is restored being the date of acceptance of the application of Petitioner for cancellation of registration - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 609
Input service distributor entitled to transition the credit from the past indirect tax regime to the GST Regime under Section 140 of the CGST Act or not - HELD THAT:- It would be proper to direct the relevant proper officer under the CGST and SGST Acts to deal with the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 coming into force on the date specified in N/N. 17/24 dated 27 September 2024 in accordance with law and after taking cognisance of The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024.
This petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 608
Detention order under Section 129 (3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, dated 23.08.2024 - Challenge to order on the premise that the goods were meant for export and thus qualified for Zero Rate Sale and thus any levy of tax or penalty is without jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- In view of the peculiar facts of the case, viz., the goods relate to export which is treated as zero rate under Section 16 of IGST Act, this Court is of the view that the petitioner shall submit a report a copy of the GSTR-1 before the appropriate respondent, inasmuch as GSTR-1 would reveal if the subject transaction is disclosed as a zero rate sale, an export transaction once disclosed in Form GSTR-1, integrated taxes ought to be paid or must be exported under Board or Letter of Undertaking in accordance with Section 54 of the Act.
In view there of, if the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the transaction is included in the GSTR-1 Return, the goods shall be released provisionally. However, insofar as the impugned proceedings dated 23.08.2024, it is always open to the petitioner to question the impugned proceedings by way of an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, subject to complying with all other conditions including payment of pre-deposit if any such appeal is filed, the same shall be disposed within a period of four weeks, from the date of filing of the appeal.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 607
Cancellation of registration granted to the petitioners - SCN proposing cancellation is issued in Form GST REG - 31, whereas it should have been issued in Form GST REG - 17 - order of cancellation does not give any reason for cancellation and is merely a reproduction of certain provisions of Section 29 and Section 30 of the CGST / SGST Acts - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioners are entitled to succeed on the ground that the order cancelling the registration does not spell out any reason for cancelling the registration except making reference to the provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of the CGST / SGST Acts. The impugned orders cancelling the registration are marked as Ext.P2 in both the writ petitions.
Without going into question as to the reference to the wrong Form in the show cause notices is a defect in the proceedings, it is required to set aside the orders produced as Ext.P2 (in both the writ petitions) on the ground that they do not spell out any reason for canceling the registration of the petitioners - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 606
Finalization of proposals/demand against the petitioner - just cause or reason to invoke the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST / SGST Acts or not - intent to evade tax or not - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has not made out any case for grant of the relief sought for in the writ petition. A perusal of the show cause notice would indicate that there are several instances of suppression which have been pointed out in the show cause notice as a justification for invoking Section 74 of the CGST / SGST Acts. While the petitioner may have raised several contentions to show that the allegations are not correct to reach a conclusion the adjudication of disputed questions of fact will be necessary. It is for the petitioner to get his claim adjudicated by the statutory authorities under the CGST / SGST Acts. The procedure under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to determine disputed questions of fact especially on account of the procedure adopted in this Court in respect of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has no case that the alternate remedy available to the petitioner is not effective including for adjudicating the question as to whether there was just cause or reason for invoking the extended period of limitation (under Section 74) in the facts and circumstances of this case.
A reading of the Ext.P10 order indicates that though not within the scope of rectification, the Officer had called for further details from the petitioner and the petitioner failed to produce any further details for the purpose of considering the contentions taken in the application for rectification. For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and will stand dismissed.
Considering the fact that Ext.P5 order was issued on 10.12.2023 and the petitioner had filed Ext.P6 application for rectification on 22.01.2024 and the fact that the rectification application was rejected only on 08.05.2024 and this writ petition was filed in the month of August 2024, the period from the date of filing of the rectification application till today can be excluded for the purpose of determining any period of limitation within which the petitioner had to file an appeal against Ext.P5 order.
Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
