Home Case Index All Cases GST This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

GST - Case Laws

Showing 741 to 760 of 13912 Records

• 2024 (9) TMI 1485
  

  Cancellation of petitioner’s GST Registration - seeking revocation of cancellation - seeking relief to declare Section 16 (2) (c) and Rule 86B of the Rules framed ultra vires the GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Section 49A of the Act prescribes conditions for utilization of input tax credit provided under Section 49; and Section 49B provides a restriction for utilization of input tax credit - The respondents have not answered in their reply to the petitioner’s contention that Rule 86B of the Act itself is not backed by any statutory provision. Rule 164 enables the Rule making authority to frame the Rule 86B or other Rules, but the Rules must have backing in the main body of the statute. Otherwise the Rule would be ultra vires - there are no force in the petitioner’s contention that Rule 86B of the Act has no statutory backing and appears to be ultra vires the provisions of the HPGST Act, 2017.

  Since the tax liability of the petitioner towards output tax stood discharged, no prejudice has been caused to the respondents. It was unnecessary for the respondents to cancel the GST Registration and they could have considered any other penalty which is more proportionate to the violation of law - the cancellation of GST Registration on the pretext of violation of Rule 86B is a disproportionate punishment imposed on petitioner and is liable to be interfered in exercise of the power conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

  Consideration by the court of alleged violation of Rule 21 (b) and Rule 21 (e) - HELD THAT:- How a “prima facie” investigation could be the basis of an order of cancellation of GST Registration without the investigation being completed, is not explained by the counsel for the respondents. The respondents ought to have waited for the investigation to be completed before imposing the drastic penalty of cancellation of GST Registration - It shocks the conscience of the Court to find an extreme penalty of the nature of cancellation of GST Registration being imposed on a business on the basis of a “prima facie” investigation conducted by the respondents - The said action of the respondents is thus clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

  The impugned order Annexure P-1 dt. 09.02.2024 is set aside, and the respondents are directed to restore the GST Registration of the petitioner, forthwith - the Writ petition is allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1484
  

  Dismissal of appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed even beyond the condonable period of limitation - provision in the Tamil Nadu Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 to condone the delay and entertain the appeal - mismatch between GSTR - 3B and ITC auto populated in GSTR - 2A - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, on going through the assessment order, it is seen that a total tax liability of Rs. 49 lakhs together with 10% penalty has been imposed against the petitioner on the ground that there was a mismatch of the input tax claim between GSTR - 3B and the ITC auto populated in GSTR - 2A. The petitioner has come up with a clear case that no opportunity was given before passing the assessment order. Hence, they filed an appeal before the first respondent. However, the appeal itself was dismissed by the impugned order as it was filed beyond the condonable period. However, this Court is inclined to afford an opportunity to the petitioner by putting the petitioner on terms.

  The impugned order passed by the first respondent is hereby set aside. The delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent is condoned. The appeal filed by the petitioner shall be taken on file by the first respondent.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1483
  

  Challenge to action of the respondents in not adjusting the ITC appearing in GSTR-2A - petitioner was issued two different GSTIN against one single Permanent Account Number (PAN) - HELD THAT:- Circular No.183/15/2022- GST would apply in the present case. Furthermore, the judgment in the case of M/s. Santosh Kumar [2023 (10) TMI 936 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] is on similar factual matrix and the said judgment is agreed upon where it was held that 'adopting the similar view, this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. S/s. Agrawal Rolling Mills, Mirzapur, [2003 (4) TMI 550 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that the benefit of circular, which came into existence during the pendency of the appeal, even up to the stage of revision, the benefit of same cannot be denied to the assessee.'

  Thus, the impugned order dated December 22, 2023 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondent No.4/Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Kanpur to pass a fresh order in terms of the Circular No.183/15/2022-GST.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1482
  

  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 - issuance of notification by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs is ultra vires of Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 or not - no recommendation of the GST Council which is the mandatory requirement for the purpose of issuance of the said Notification - 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 petitioner herein is 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 22.04.2024 - The respondents are directed to file their affidavits on or before 15.09.2024.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1481
  

  Challenge to order-in-original - difference between the ITC claimed in FORM GSTR-3B and that available in FORM GSTR 2A of the registered person in respect of a supplier for the said financial year exceeds Rs. 5 lakh - HELD THAT:- It is required to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order and remit the case back to the respondent for passing fresh orders in terms of the circular dated 27.12.2022. The appellant is required to comply with the requirements of the aforesaid circular by producing the required certificate within the time to be stipulated by the assessing authority.

  This writ appeal stands allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1480
  

  Refund of certain amounts paid erroneously - respondents would submit that while rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner, it is seen that the officer had taken the view that the petitioner could not receive any advance payment after the supply of goods in the month of January, 2024 - HELD THAT:- This reasoning adopted by the Officer does not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner has a case that the description of the amount received in February, 2024, as an advance, is actually a mistake and the same was also rectified by filing an amended return as can be seen from Ext.P4. This aspect of the matter does not appear to have been considered by the officer while passing Ext.P9 order.

  The refund application of the petitioner shall be reconsidered by the competent among the respondents, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The orders as aforesaid shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment - Ext.P9 is quashed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1479
  

  Demand of differential IGST and GST Compensation Cess along with interest and penalty on supply of goods to merchant exporter - Fulfilment of conditions of N/N. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) on supplies made to merchant exporter or not - benefit of concessional rate of tax - HELD THAT:- As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the reply dated 29.2.2024 vide Annexure-L will indicate that the petitioner has specifically sought for an opportunity of personal hearing before the matter was adjudicated. Despite the specific request made by the petitioner for an opportunity of personal hearing, the respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order which is not only in violation of principles of natural justice but also contrary to Section 75 (4) of the CGSC Act warranting interference in the present petition.

  The impugned order at Annexure-A is hereby set aside - Matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1478
  

  Detention of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner - whether the goods may be released by the authorities under Section 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act? - HELD THAT:- The facts and issue in the present writ petition are quite similar to one in H/S HALDER ENTERPRISES VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [2023 (12) TMI 514 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. In light of the same, we see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter. Ergo, the goods would have to be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.

  Accordingly, the order passed by the authorities dated July 27, 2024 is quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act within a period of three weeks from today.

  The writ petition is allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1477
  

  Cancellation of registration under Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - it is submitted that client is ready and willing to pay the tax, interest, late fee, penalty and any other sum required to be paid for the return form of his client to be accepted by the department - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. The Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others [2022 (11) TMI 1521 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'the delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc., due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.'

  Same direction is made in this writ petition. Petitioner gets the relief in the interest of revenue - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1476
  

  Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - seeking grant of one last opportunity to present the case before the concerned Appellate Authority - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it appears that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order, due to which, there was a delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, being satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner and also considering the submission made by the petitioner with regard to the payment of entire tax liabilities, this Court is inclined to condone the delay.

  The petition is disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1475
  

  Transition of Input Tax Credit without actually filing a return under the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 for the month of July 2017 - HELD THAT:- As long as the petitioner was entitled to avail Input Tax Credit under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it cannot be allowed to be lapsed, unless the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 itself provided for its lapsing. In this connection, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE VERSUS DAI ICHI KARKARIA LTD. [1999 (8) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT] was invited wherein, it has been held 'There is no provision in the rules which provides for a reversal of the credit by the Excise Authorities except where it has been illegally or irregularly taken, in which event it stands cancelled or, if utilised, has to be paid for. The credit in the instant cases having been taken validly, is, therefore, indefeasible.'

  Thus, the credit which was earned by the petitioner cannot be defeated under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001.

  As far as the procedural irregularity committed by the petitioner in following the procedures under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 is concerned, the same has to be condoned as the procedures cannot come in the legitimate way of grant of Input Tax Credit - In this connection, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, UP. VERSUS AURAIYA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ALLAHBAD [1986 (4) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], is relevant wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that procedures are handmaids of justice and not mistress of law.

  The impugned order dated 04.08.2021 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1474
  

  Seeking to quash two orders issued by respondent No.3 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record will indicate that several contentions have been urged by the petitioner for the purpose of contending that the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 as well as the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions and in the light of the undisputed fact that the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 was an ex-parte order which was passed without the petitioner contesting the Show Cause Notice, it is deemed just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondent No.3 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

  The petition is hereby allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1473
  

  Transition of ITC - Period of transition wherein the Input Tax Credit available under the VAT regime was to be electronically transferred to the Electronic Credit Ledger as available to the assessees, under the GST regime - petitioner contends that the non-uploading of the Form cannot restrict the Input Tax claim validly permissible under the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- This Court after noticing Section 18 of the GST Act with the nominal heading ‘Availability of credit in special circumstances’ held '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.'

  The petitioner hence cannot claim for the credit at this point of time. Despite the writ petition having been filed in 2022, the petitioner ought to have availed of the window of relief made available between 01.10.2022 and 30.11.2022. There is no question of a credit being permitted, which has not been sought for in the prescribed manner and within the time stipulated.

  There are absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition, the same is dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1472
  

  Challenge to order passed u/s 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 - error apparent on the face of the record - eligibility to claim Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- The writ petition stands closed. The petitioner is at liberty to file a rectification petition under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If however, for any reason, the petitioner does not file the rectification petition within the stipulated period, the impugned order would stands revived.

  Petition closed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1471
  

  Cancellation of client’s registration under Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - client is ready and willing to pay the tax, interest, late fee, penalty and any other sum required to be paid for the return form of his client to be accepted by the department - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M/S. MOHANTY ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER, CT & GST, ODISHA, CUTTACK AND OTHERS [2022 (11) TMI 1521 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'the delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc., due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.

  The writ petition is disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1470
  

  Review petition - Imposition of penalty - non-updation of the four e-waybills by the petitioners - HELD THAT:- The Coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 29th November, 2023 [2023 (11) TMI 1293 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] had not only taken note of the factum of e-waybills being updated within two minutes of interception but had also taken note that by reasons of genuine difficulty, updating of part-B of the e-waybills was not complied with immediately. It also appears from the aforesaid order that this Court taking note of the factum of non-disclosure of cogent reasons in the impugned order and the same being a non-speaking order and also being harsh, in the facts of the said case had modified the order of penalty to Rs. 50,000/-.

  Having regard to the aforesaid and taking note of the disclosure made in the writ petition, it is very difficult to conclude that the Court had passed the order by overlooking the factum of non-updation of the Part-B of the fourth e-waybill.

  There is no reason to conclude that the Court being oblivious of such statement had passed the order - Review dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1469
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - an opportunity for a hearing provided, but it failed to specify any date, time, or venue for the hearing - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the show cause notice dated August 8, 2023, clearly indicates that the authority marked 'not applicable' in the columns for the date, time, and venue of the personal hearing. This suggests that the authority was not inclined to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, leading to the assessment order dated November 17, 2023.

  If the initial action is bad, subsequent proceedings based on such action cannot be sustained.

  The assessment was based on a show cause notice denying the petitioner the right to a personal hearing. Consequently, the proceedings based on the defective show cause notice must go.

  The authority is permitted to initiate a fresh proceeding under Section 73 of the Act of 2017, giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Should a new proceeding be initiated, the limitation under Section 73(10) of the Act should commence from the date of the new notice - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1468
  

  Rejection of appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of demand - discrepancies in GSTR returns - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the notices were uploaded in the portal, but no hard copy was served on the petitioner, this Court feels that reasonable has been shown by the petitioner for the delay. Therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 263 days in filing the appeal.

  The delay of 263 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent is condoned and the order of the appellate authority/first respondent is set aside - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1467
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - Challenge to demand notice issued under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Any defect in the show cause notice would cause violation of principles of natural justice. On query made, respondent submits, time be extended for petitioner to file reply and thereafter in event personal hearing is sought, it will be given.

  The impugned demand is set aside and quashed. Petitioner has two weeks from date to file reply to the show cause. In event it does file reply, in it request may be made for personal hearing or separately thereafter.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1466
  

  Seeking rectification of the order u/s 161 of the CGST/SGST Act - mismatch between GSTR-I filed by the supplier and GSTR-3B filed by the petitioner - input tax credit to which the petitioner was entitled has not been granted to him - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the limited nature of the reliefs now sought for by the petitioner, without going into the merits, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 rectification application filed by the petitioner in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

  Petiiton disposed off.

  ---

1 ....343536373839404142........ 696