|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 641 to 660 of 13912 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 281
Cancellation of GST registration - dismissal on the ground of time limitation - non-filing of the GSTR 3B returns - pure non-application of mind on the part of respondents - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order dated 06.04.2023, it is observed that the petitioner is required to pay the following amount, however, the amount is mentioned as "zero". Therefore, there was no occasion to deposit the amount because the respondents did not mention the amount to be paid. The said communication also shows non-application of mind.
The orders dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby set aside. Consequently, the petition is allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 280
Challenge to cancellation of registration - rejection of appeal for which no reason has been assigned - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled that not only the judicial order, but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recording in it.
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT & LEASING, KOTA VERSUS M/S SHUKLA & BROTHERS [2010 (4) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT], TRAVANCORE RAYONS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1969 (10) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT] have observed that the administrative authority and the tribunal are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof would render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Once the reason has not been assigned by the competent authority while passing the impugned orders, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
In absence of any reason in the impugned order, the matter requires reconsideration by the appellate court.
The impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed - the matter is remanded to the appellate authority, who shall proceed de novo and pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from today - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 279
Principles of natural justice - service of SCN - Show Cause Notices were issued prior to passing the Impugned Order under Section 73 (9) of the State Act or not - challenge to determination of tax as well as the Order attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DCR-01 - impugned orders under Section 73 (9) of the State Act is in conformity with Section 75 (4) of the State Act or not.
Whether Show Cause Notices were issued prior to passing the Impugned Order under Section 73 (9) of the State Act? - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing the determination of tax cannot be said to be a valid initiation of proceedings under Section 73 without issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. The Summary of the Show Cause Notice is in addition to the issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the impugned orders challenged in the instant batch of writ petitions are contrary to the provisions of Section 73 as well as Rule 142 (1) (a) of the Rules as the said impugned Orders were passed with issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice.
Whether the determination of tax as well as the Order attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DCR-01 and Summary of the Order in GST DCR-07 can be said to be the Show Cause Notice and Order respectively? - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the provisions of Section 73 would show that the Show Cause Notice is required to be issued by the Proper Officer, the Statement under Section 73 (3) is to be issued by the Proper Officer as well as the Order under Section 73 (9) is required to be passed by the Proper Officer. Section 2 (91) of the Act defines who is the Proper Officer meaning thereby either the Commissioner or the Officer who had been specifically entrusted by the Commissioner. As it is the statutory mandate that it is only the Proper Officer who has the authority to issue Show Cause Notice and the Statement and pass the order, the authentication in the Show Cause Notice, Statement as well as the Order by the Proper Officer is a must and failure to do so, makes the Show Cause Notice, Statement and Order ineffective and redundant.
It is also important to note that the Act only stipulates that notice would be issued and order would be passed by the Proper Officer. The manner in which the Proper Officer would authenticate the notice(s) or the order(s) in so far as other Chapters of the Rules of 2017 is silent except Chapter-III. Taking into account the utmost necessity of the authentication by the Proper Officer, this Court is of the opinion unless appropriate insertion are made in the Rules or notification are issued as per the directions of the Board to fill the void in the Rules of 2017, the authentication in the manner stipulated in Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017 has to be applied as and when the Proper Officer is required to issue notice or Statement and pass Order in terms with the Act.
Whether the impugned orders under Section 73 (9) of the State Act is in conformity with Section 75 (4) of the State Act and is in consonance with the principles of natural justice? - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that when the statute is clear to provide an opportunity of hearing, there is a requirement of providing such opportunity. In fact a perusal of the Form GST DRC-01 enclosed to the writ petitions shows details have been given as regards the date by which the reply has to be submitted; date of personal hearing; time of personal hearing and venue of personal hearing. It is seen that in the Summary of the Show Cause Notice only the date for submission of reply has been mentioned. In respect to other details as stated above have been mentioned to as ‘NA’. It may be that the Proper Officer assumed that based on the reply he/she may proceed with the adjudication depending as to whether the person to whom the notice is issued had opted for personal hearing or not. But in a case where no reply is filed, a question arises whether the Proper Officer can pass an adverse order without providing an opportunity for hearing. The answer has to be in the negative else it would render the second part of Section 75 (4) redundant.
The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 278
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner with retrospective effect - power to cancel a registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - compliance with procedural requirements under Section 29 of the CGST Act.
HELD THAT:- As is manifest from a reading of Section 29, clauses (a) to (e) of Section 29(2) constitute independent limbs on the basis of which a registration may warrant cancellation. While the provision does enable the respondents to cancel that registration with retrospective effect, the mere existence or conferral of that power would not justify a revocation of registration. The order under Section 29 (2) must itself reflect the reasons which may have weighed upon the respondents to cancel registration with retrospective effect. Given the deleterious consequences which would ensue and accompany a retroactive cancellation makes it all the more vital that the order be reasoned and demonstrative of due application of mind. It is also necessary to observe that the mere existence of such a power would not in itself be sufficient to sustain its invocation.
It is emphasised that the power to cancel retrospectively can neither be robotic nor routinely applied unless circumstances so warrant. When tested on the aforesaid precepts it becomes ex facie evident that the impugned order of cancellation cannot be sustained.
While dealing with the right of the respondents to cancel GST registration with retrospective effect and the manner in which such power should be exercised in accordance with the statutory scheme was an issue which was noticed in Ramesh Chander vs Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, Dwarka Division, CGST Delhi & Anr. [2024 (1) TMI 1014 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The Court in Ramesh Chander taking note of the contours of Section 29 had held that 'It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a tax payer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in this regard is correct, it would follow that the proper officer is also required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.'
Thus, in light of an abject failure on the part of the authority to assign even rudimentary reasons for a retroactive cancellation, the order impugned cannot be sustained - impugned order is hereby quashed - petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 277
Seeking quashing the order of adjudication passed under Section 74 of the KGST / CGST Act, demand notice and order passed under Section 107 of the KGST / CGST Act - time limitation - condonation of delay - return of seized documents - recovery of input tax credit claimed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on two grounds viz., firstly, the appeal is barred by limitation; secondly, the petitioner has not made the mandatory pre-deposit of 10%. The finding of respondent No. 2 that the appeal was barred by limitation was factually incorrect inasmuch as the appeal was filed on 29.12.2023 before expiry of 4 months (3+1) and consequently, the said finding regarding the appeal being barred by limitation by proceeding on a factually incorrect premise coupled with the fact that the affidavit for condonation of delay has not been considered by respondent No. 2 - appellate authority warranting interference by this court in the present petition.
Insofar as the finding recorded by respondent No. 2 as regards non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit of 10% is concerned, the same would also have to be reconsidered by the respondent in accordance with law.
The order dated 31.08.2023 passed under Section 74 of the KGST / CGST passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-4, Shivamoga for the assessment year 2018-19 is set aside - matter is remitted back for re-consideration of the appeal on merits as well as non payment of deposit of 10% and in accordance with law - petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 276
Challenge to impugned order passed by the respondent - mismatch between GSTR 3B with that of GSTR-1 for the year 2017-18 - service of SCN - opportunity of personal hearing - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is seen that notice was issued by the respondent but however, the petitioner did not receive the same. On going through the impugned order, it is seen that a total tax liability of Rs. 2,96,544/- 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 between GSTR3B 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 in GSTIN 33AAMFR9785P1Z1/2017-18 dated 20.12.2023, 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 20% 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. On compliance with the said condition, the petitioner will file their reply/objection along with all the relevant documents within a period of two weeks thereafter.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 275
Rectification of mistake - mistake apparent on the face of record or not - Challenge to N/N. 54/2018 Central Tax – dated 9th October, 2018 which finally substituted Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules with effect from 9th October, 2018 - It is the case of the applicant that there are various mistakes apparent on record and therefore, this application is filed under section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for review of the CAV judgment in [2020 (10) TMI 1099 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- The mistakes which are apparent on record are rectified and CAV judgment dated 20th October, 2020 therefore, now shall stand corrected accordingly. Registry to issue fresh writ accordingly.
Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 274
Challenge to assessment order - petitioner contested the order and paid 10% of the disputed tax while filing an appeal - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, complaining inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in lifting the said order of attachment and Garnishee and in considering the representation of the petitioner dated 07.07.2023, despite passage of more than one year.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and has paid 10% of the disputed tax, as required under Section 107 of the CGST Act, no further tax can be recovered from the petitioner, in pursuance of the order of assessment under appeal. In such circumstances, continuation of the order of attachment and Garnishee is clearly impermissible and against the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The relief sought is only a direction to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 07.07.2023, there would be no point in driving the petitioner to go before respondents 1 and 2 for determination of a predetermined fact - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 273
Challenge to action on the part of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in issuance of a Notification bearing No. 56/2023 dated 28.12.2023 - Interpretation of the term "force majeure" in relation to the extension of time limits for passing orders under the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This Court having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties is of the opinion that it prima facie appears that the Notification bearing No.56/2023 is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 168 (A) of the Central GST Act, 2017. If the said notification cannot stand the scrutiny of law, all consequential actions so taken on the basis of such notification would also fail.
This Court is of the opinion, that the petitioners herein are entitled to an interim protection pending the notice. Till the next date, no coercive action shall be taken on the basis of impugned assessment order dated 23.04.2024 - The respondents are directed to file their affidavits on or before 15.09.2024.
List accordingly.
-
2024 (10) TMI 272
Challenge to impugned order of assessment and the consequential order passed in the rectification petition filed by the petitioner - non-application of mind - non-speaking order - impugned order of adjudication is challenged on the premise that the it has been passed without dealing with the petitioner's objections and without assigning any reasons for rejecting the detailed objection filed by petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice.
Revenue would submit that the respondent would re-do the entire assessment.
HELD THAT:- The impugned order of assessment dated 30.06.2023 is set aside and the Writ Petition stands disposed of. The impugned order of assessment shall be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 03.10.2024 at 11.00 AM and submit their objections along with relevant documentary evidence. If any such objections are filed, the respondent shall consider the same and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of reasonable hearing to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition challenging the order passed in the rectification petition filed by the petitioner, it was submitted by both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent that in view of the fact that the impugned order of assessment is now being set aside, nothing survives for adjudication in the said Writ Petition - Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 271
Liability of the petitioner to pay GST under reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- The issue in controversy involved in the present petition as regards liability of the petitioner to pay GST under reverse charge mechanism is squarely covered by the decision of the Honb'le Division Bench of this Court in [2022 (4) TMI 774 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], wherein it has held 'Whatever the ratio, the tax in its entirety has reached the hands of the ex-chequer. Merely for the reason that there was no strict adherence to the ratio as envisaged during the relevant point of time for payment of tax insofar as the assessee and the service provider, the assessee cannot be made liable to pay the double tax. What is significant to note is that the discharge of entire tax amount is not disputed. Thus, the reverse charge mechanism would not lead to double taxation.'
As can be seen from the finding recorded by this Court at paragraph No.9 of the order, so long the discharge of entire tax amount is not disputed and reverse charge mechanism would lead to double taxation, petitioner cannot be made liable to pay double tax as held in the aforesaid order.
Thus, the judgment of this Court in M/s. Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd., and Anr Vs. The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission and Anr [2021 (10) TMI 233 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] is directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand and present appeal deserves to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
Impugned order at Annexure-A is hereby quashed - petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 270
Violation of principles of natural justice - Validity of SCN - cryptic notice - Whether the show cause notice for cancellation of registration and action of suspending the registration by order dated 27.01.2024 is justifiable and proper or not? - HELD THAT:- Since the impugned show-cause notice and suspension of registration is founded upon a cryptic notice dated 27.01.2024, both are set aside. On regular basis, this kind of notices are noticed whereby, without assigning adequate reasons, the business of taxpayer is suddenly suspended. In absence of basic reasons available in the show-cause notice, the party aggrieved by it cannot even prefer an effective representation - the authorities should sensitize themselves and should not pass order/notice in the mechanical manner it is passed in the present case. We hope and trust that, henceforth, the authorities will take care of this aspect.
The impugned show-cause notice dated 27.01.2024 and the order suspending the registration are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 269
Challenge to impugned demand order along with its summary in e-form DRC-07 - violation of principles of natural justice - appropriate forum - appellate forum - HELD THAT:- It is for the Appellate Forum to decide, whether the appeal is within time, and if not, whether the delay needs to be condoned or not.
The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach Appellate Authority, as provided under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act.
-
2024 (10) TMI 268
Provisional Attachment of petitioner’s bank account - petitioner states that he has not received any further/subsequent orders of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in terms of Section 83 (2) of the CGST Act, an order passed under Section 83 (1) of the CGST Act, would cease to operate after expiry of a period of one year from the date the order. Thus, even if it is assumed that an appropriate order under Section 83 of the CGST Act was passed by the respondent no. 1, on the strength of which communications were issued to the respondent banks and the respondent no. 7 (RTO), the same would no longer be operative.
Since the provisional attachment order(s) are no longer operative, the respondent banks are hereby directed not to prevent the petitioner from operating the concerned bank account/s, on the basis of communication(s)/order(s) impugned in the present petition.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 267
Provisional Attachment of bank account - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Since it is the petitioner’s case that its bank account was attached under Section 83 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 in the year 2020-21 and the said order has not been removed or revived, the said order would be now inoperative by virtue of Section 83 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The petition is disposed of by directing that respondent no. 2 bank would not interdict the operation of the petitioner’s bank accounts, solely on the basis of any order under Section 83 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, passed in the year 2020-21.
-
2024 (10) TMI 266
Levy of GST - mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government - N/N. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is A. Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'It is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision.'
This petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2024 (10) TMI 265
Classification of the applicant's business activities under Rule 32(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - person dealing in buying and selling of second hand goods where tax is to be paid on the difference between the selling and purchase price or not - transaction of purchases of old / second hand gold jewellery / ornaments or diamond jewellery / ornaments from individuals who are not dealers / registered under GST - supply of goods or supply of services - reverse charge mechanism - applicant is liable to pay GST on the goods received from the buyer or not.
HELD THAT:- In terms of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the GST Act, tax on intra-State supplies of goods or services or both is levied on the value determined under section 15 of the Act ibid. Further, as per sub-section (1) of section 15 of the GST Act, the value of a supply of goods or services or both shall be the transaction value, which is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply of goods or services or both where the supplier and the recipient of the supply are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the supply. However, in respect of second-hand goods, a person dealing is such goods is allowed to pay tax on the margin i.e. the difference between the value at which the goods are supplied and the price at which the goods are purchased subject to certain restrictions.
In the instant case, the applicant has submitted that he purchases second-hand gold or diamond jewelleries from unregistered individuals and thereafter repairs or reshapes these items by melting the old jewelleries and transforming those into new pieces, such as changing a gold bangle into a bracelet or an earring into a locket. There can be no denying that the item namely bangle is different from a bracelet. Similarly, when an earring is melted to convert it into a locket, it loses it’s nature and characteristics to emerge as a new commodity. The process is nothing but manufacturing as per clause (72) of section 2 of the GST act which states that, “manufacture” means processing of raw material or inputs in any manner that results in emergence of a new product having a distinct name, character and use and the term "manufacturer" shall be construed accordingly. In the instant case, the purchased gold is used as a raw material or input to make a new commodity.
In White Gold Bullion (P.) Ltd [2023 (5) TMI 747 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA] it is observed by the Advance Ruling Authority that “when the applicant melts the gold jewellery into gold lumps, the nature of goods changes in as much as the characteristics of the articles and the classification changes. Since the processing done by the applicant changes the nature of goods, they do not satisfy the second condition mentioned supra at para 10.2 and hence not eligible to avail the benefits of Rule 32 (5) of CGST Rules, 2017”.
Where the applicant uses the purchased old / second hand jewelleries/ornaments as a raw material or input for manufacturing a new article is not entitled to pay GST on the margin value, i.e. difference between the sale price and purchase price as stipulated in Rule 32 (5) of CGST Rules, 2017. Hence, in this scenario, applicant cannot avail of the benefit of provisions stated under sub-rule (5) of rule 32 of CGST rules, 2017 - in cases where the applicant, after making purchases of old / second-hand jewelleries/ornaments, carries out the process of melting it to manufacture a new/different ornament, the applicant cannot adopt the valuation method as prescribed in rule 32 (5). However, where the old gold ornaments/jewellery are purchased and subsequently supplied after minor processing that does not change the nature of the ornaments so purchased, the applicant can pay tax on the value as determined under rule 32 (5).
Thus, rule 32 (5) is available only when a registered person dealing with buying and selling of second hand goods only. In other words where the registered person deals with different business activities such as engage in supply of services, manufacturing or selling new articles apart from dealing with buying and selling of second hand goods cannot avail the benefit of rule 32 (5). In such a case GST is payable at applicable rate on actual value of the commodity and not on margin value.
-
2024 (10) TMI 206
Rejection of appeal - neither any order has been passed nor any reason has been assigned for rejecting the appeal - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed an appeal, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22.7.2024 wherein no reason has been assigned. On the strength of instruction filed today, learned Standing Counsel has tried to support the action of the respondent, however, on perusal of the instructions, it shows that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. It only refers the delay in submission of appeal, which shows that while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, the appellate authority has not applied its mind.
It is settled law that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled that not only the judicial order, but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recording in it.
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla & Brothers [2010 (4) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT], M/s Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India [1969 (10) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT] have observed that the administrative authority and the tribunal are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof would render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Once the reason has not been assigned by the competent authority for levying the penalty then on this ground alone, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
The impugned orders passed in both the writ petitions cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 205
Confirmation of tax with interest and penalty - various defects in SCN - suppression of sales - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute on the aspect that during the year 2020, Covid-19 was at peak, during which period, there was complete shut down. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture/sale of milk and milk allied products. Due to Covid-19 lock down restrictions, the petitioner could not run the business successfully as they did before, which resulted in the goods being stagnated in the godowns, and that since the petitioner is carrying out the manufacturing process as a Job Worker, the final products manufactured for the third party has to be stored in the deep freezer facility installed in the petitioner's business premises till the final products are supplied to the principal suppliers, viz., Co-operatives Societies, i.e. for 200 MT under (-20 degree Celsius) for which purpose, the petitioner has to run the plant for 24 hours for storage of the goods under -20 degree Celsius, which contributed to the excess consumption of electricity, and despite the fact that the said aspect was answered by the petitioner in the form of reply, clearly stating that EB units consumed are not directly linked with the sales of the petitioner and also explained the reason for the difference in turnover during the period subject period with supporting documents, the respondent failed to consider the said vital aspect and passed the impugned orders.
This Court also feels that the respondent ought to have taken into consideration of the aforesaid vital aspect before passing the impugned orders, in the absence of any contrary evidence available to substantiate the alleged suppression of sale, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders.
The matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration with regard to the said defect alone - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 204
Challenge to order passed by the respondent No. 2 u/s 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD 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.'
Upon a perusal of record, it appears that the factual matrix is very similar to one in Mahaveer Trading Company's [2024 (3) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - there are no reason to take a different stand.
The impugned order dated 29.4.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Karvi Sector-1, Banda, 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 disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
