|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 13886 Records
-
2024 (11) TMI 823
Extension of time limits for filing annual returns under GST Acts - Validity of SCN - N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 - HELD THAT:- As the time limit for passing an Order under Section 73[9] of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 for the Financial Year : 2017-2018, extended by the Notification no. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2024, has been holding the field, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority as the petitioner has an adequate, efficacious and statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017.
It has been settled by a long line of decisions including the decision in PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VERSUS UCO BANK AND OTHERS [2024 (4) TMI 466 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], to the effect that when an efficacious, alternative, adequate and statutory remedy of appeal is available, then a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be entertained, unless the petitioner has been able to make out any of the grounds :- [a] the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; [b] there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; [c] the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or [d] the vires of a legislation is challenged. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority for the Financial Year : 2017-2018 under Section 107 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017.
This writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2024 (11) TMI 786
Entertainability of the present petition at the stage of the show cause notice - recovery of taxes - determination of the value of the supply as per Section 15 (3) (b) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the show cause notice, a specific allegation is made on suppressing facts and misstatement regarding non-furnishing details of outward supplies under Section 37 of the CGST Act. There is also an allegation that the facts have been suppressed with the intention to evade the payment of GST. It is further stated in the show cause notice that if the investigation had not been conducted, evasion of GST would not have come to light. The respondents in the show cause notice have invoked the extended period of limitation based on the allegations of suppression of facts and misstatement with an intention to evade the payment of GST from July 2017 to March 2022. The show cause notice also deals with the onus of proof and its extent of compliance for the purpose of Section 15 (3) (b) of the CGST Act.
The issue of whether there is a suppression of facts or misstatement to invoke an extended period of limitation would require a determination on the factual matter which this Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, certainly cannot enter into. The issue of shifting of onus also involves adjudication on facts - the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice has been issued only on the ground of retrospective application of the Circular is also ill-founded. There is no challenge to the said circular in the prayer clause of the petition.
The petition to challenge the show cause notice dated 2 August 2024 is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted time up to 15 December 2024 to file its reply to the show cause notice. Respondent no. 3 to give a personal hearing to the petitioner and, after considering the petitioner's submissions, pass a reasoned and speaking order on or before 31 January 2025.
-
2024 (11) TMI 785
Interest on delayed payment of refund of tax as per Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - interest for the period starting from the expiry of 60 days from the date of filing the shipping bill up to the date of grant of refund, although during the interregnum, the Petitioner’s name was red flagged on the respondents' portal - HELD THAT:- Section 56 of the CGST Act provides for the period for which the interest is to be granted, and the said period starts from the date of receipt of an application for refund till the date of refund of such tax. In the instant case, the shipping bill is considered as an application for refund and, therefore, the period for grant of interest would begin on expiry of 60 days from the date of the shipping bill and would continue till the date of refund of such tax. In the absence of any provision in Section 56 to exclude the contingency with which we are faced, the denial of interest by the Respondents cannot be justified. If the submissions of the Respondents is accepted, then the same would amount to rewriting the provisions of Section 56 of the CGST Act by this Court, which certainly is not permissible.
The Petitioner is entitled to interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act for the period beginning with the expiry of 60 days from the date of the shipping bill up to the date of grant of refund - petition allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 784
Cancellation of GST registration due to non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of 6 months - HELD THAT:- It is discernible from a reading of the proviso to sub-rule [4] of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 that if a person who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29[2][c] of the CGST Act, 2017, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form i.e. Form GST REG-20.
Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been canceled under Section 29[2][c] of the CGST Act, 2017 for the reason that the petitioner did not submit returns for a period of 6 [six] months and more; the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule [4] of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the orders passed by the coordinate benches of this Court as well as by this Court in similar matters whereby the matters have been disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to revoke the cancellation of registration upon due payment of all statutory dues payable by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that no purpose will be served by keeping this writ petition pending and the present writ petition can be disposed of in similar terms, as had been made in similar other writ petitions.
The impugned order dated 09.12.2021 is hereby interfered with and set aside. The petitioner is directed to approach the concerned authority within a period of 1 [one] month from today, seeking revocation of cancellation and restoration of his GST registration - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 783
Seeking release of goods - only prayer made by the petitioner is that in the event the amount is deposited to the satisfaction of the authorities, the goods may be released in favour of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The petitioner shall deposit the entire amount as contemplated under Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act to the satisfaction of the authorities within a period of one week from today. In event the amount is deposited, the goods and vehicles be released in favour of the petitioner immediately thereafter.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 782
Cancellation of petitioner's GST registration due to lack of natural justice - non-application of mind - HELD THAT:- The impugned order in the very first sentence refers to the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice dated 10 November 2020, filed on 25 November 2020. However, after this, it is stated that no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted. This appears to be in contradiction in terms and indicative of non-application of mind.
Admittedly, the petitioner had filed a reply dated 25 November 2020 to the show cause notice dated 10 November 2020. This does not appear to have been considered before making the impugned order dated 09 April 2021. Besides, it is admitted by Ms Chavan, learned Addl. GP that no hearing had been given to the petitioner before the impugned order dated 09 April 2021 was made.
The impugned order dated 09 April 2021 was made without due compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. Ordinarily, the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies is not strictly enforced when petitions against such orders are entertained.
The impugned order dated 09 April 2021 is quashed - the respondents will immediately restore the petitioner’s registration so that the petitioner can file necessary returns, make payments and comply with other formalities by 11 December 2024 - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 781
Dismissal of Petitioner’s appeal - Petitioner has not submitted any valid proof regarding payment of the mandatory pre-deposit equal to 10% of the disputed amount as required under Section 107 (6) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner has not submitted any valid documents, such as Board Resolution, to establish that he is the authorised signatory to sign the appeals under the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- To be registered on the GSTN portal as an authorized signatory, the person must submit the relevant board resolution or power of attorney authorizing him. If Respondent No. 2 had taken a few seconds to check the GSTN portal, he would have found that Mr. Deepak Kokate is duly authorised to sign the appeal documents.
In a similar matter in TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, [2024 (9) TMI 396 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], this Court had, by an order dated 13th August 2024, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded it for de novo consideration.
The impugned order is quashed - matter remanded to Respondent No. 2 for de novo consideration.
-
2024 (11) TMI 780
Denial of benefit of input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Sub Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, for the financial year 2018-19 through Ext.P5 order dated 18.04.2024 - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the assertion of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on account of notification of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, the petitioner will be entitled to input tax credit, which has been denied to the petitioner by Ext.P5 order, the writ petition will stand disposed of, setting aside Ext.P5 to the extent that it denied input tax credit to the petitioner on account of the provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing the competent authority to pass fresh orders, after taking note of the provisions contained in Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST Acts and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 779
Violation of principles of natural justice - It is the case of the petitioner that the reply submitted by the petitioner where the petitioner had claimed the benefit of Circular No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27-12-2022 has not been considered by the officer while issuing Ext.P6 - HELD THAT:- According to the petitioner the declarations required to be produced in terms of the aforesaid Circular was also produced before the officer. However, while considering the reply the officer has considered only one issue pointed out by the petitioner which is the recommendation of the 53rd GST Council Meeting and has not considered any other issue including the question as to whether the declaration submitted by the petitioner in terms of the Circular referred to above can be accepted or not. The officer does not also appear to have considered the contention taken by the petitioner that certain amounts covering the demand for which declarations could not be produced have also been remitted by the petitioner. Therefore, there are no option but to set aside Ext.P6 and to remit the matter for fresh consideration of the 1st respondent who shall pass fresh orders after affording a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioners after considering all the contentions taken by the petitioner in the reply / replies submitted by the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 778
Seeking quashing of order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner for assessment year 2017-18 - grievance raised in this petition is that the petitioner had already deposited tax under the IGST Act - Vires of Section 19 (1) of IGST Act and Section 77 (1) of CGST and RGST Act of 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering determination of the factual aspects is required to be done at first instance before the vires of the provisions can be gone into, the petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal before the GST Tribunal - It is clarified that the issue of challenge to the vires is kept open.
No further proceedings for recovery of the balance amount shall be taken against the petitioner in case of the authorities being satisfied that the condition of pre-deposit for filing the appeal has been complied with. The petitioner shall also deposit the refunded amount received on these transactions under IGST.
The GST Tribunal has not been constituted till date, the petitioner shall file an appeal within three months from the date of constitution of the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall consider the appeal on merits after being satisfied that the condition of pre-deposit has been complied with.
-
2024 (11) TMI 777
Challenge to order passed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - penalty imposed under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act due to non-generation of Part-B of the E-way bill - HELD THAT:- It appears that it is not in dispute that in response to the show cause notice in Form GST MOV-07 dated 03.03.2022, the representative of the petitioner without any demur accepted the notice and paid the amount of Rs. Rs.11,80,150/- as penalty voluntarily without any objections. The respondent No. 1 was therefore justified in passing the impugned order-in-original in Form GST MOV-09 for levy of the penalty of Rs. Rs.11,80,150/- upon the petitioner for violation of the provisions of Section 129 (1) of the CGST Act.
However, the fact remains that the petitioner had no intention to evade the tax as the petitioner was transporting the goods in question from the Port after clearance of the same by the Custom Authorities to the place of the manufacture. It is also emerging from the record that the petitioner had generated Part-A of the e-way bill and only the Part-B of the e-way bill was not accompanying the goods in the conveyance, when the same were intercepted at 6:05 p.m. on 01.03.2022.
In the facts of the case, as the petitioner has paid the penalty pursuant to the notice after detention or seizure of the goods in question in response to the notice issued as per Sub-section 3 of the Section 129 of the CGST Act, the petitioner was liable to pay the penalty equivalent to two hundred per cent of the tax payable or however, in the facts of the case, as the IGST was already paid on the goods, the petitioner was subjected to the penalty of two hundred per cent of the tax paid, but, at the same time, considering the fact that the contravention of the Rule 138 is venial and technical as the goods in question were not accompanying with the Part-B of the e-way bill, the penalty as prescribed in Clause (a) of Section 129 (1) of the CGST Act is required to be modified and the lesser penalty of Rs. 25,000/- as stated in the said Clause would justify the contravention of the Rule 138 of the Rules committed by the petitioner for not having Part-B of the e-way bill in the facts of the case.
The impugned order of penalty passed by Respondent No. 1 therefore stands modified to Rs. 25,000/- instead of Rs. Rs.11,80,150/- levied and confirmed by the respondent authorities.
-
2024 (11) TMI 776
Amendment of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, particularly by insertion of sub-section (5) in Section 16 - input tax credit - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted its invoice/debit note pertaining to the financial year 2018-19 and, that too, prior to 30.11.2021 and, therefore, the case of the petitioner very well comes under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 16.
The respondent authorities are directed to consider the matter and pass an appropriate order taking into consideration the provision of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, vide Amendment (Finance Act, 2024) dated 16.08.2024.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 775
Classification of goods - Natural Antioxidant Water with natural Betel Leaf extract and natural Ajwain extract - to be classified under HSN 2202 9920 or not - taxable @ 12% for the products manufactured from end or not - HELD THAT:- The comments offered by both Central and State jurisdictional authorities that both the authorities have stated categorically that the HSN classification 2202 9920 adopted by the applicant is wrong as the product does not comprise of any Fruit Juice and Fruit Pulp'.
Hence, the description of goods falling under the Tariff item 2202 99 20 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 reveals that the said Tariff entry is relating to Fruit pulp or fruit juice based drink. Whereas the ANTIOXIDANT WATER manufactured by the applicant, does not contain any Fruit Pulp or Fruit Juice. The raw materials utilized in the manufacturing process are extracts of betel leaves/Ajwain seeds dissolved in propylene glycol and Menthol crystals. As observed from the process description furnished by the Applicant and on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the classification “2202 99 20” adopted by the applicant is not correct.
Whether the Rate of Tax @12% adopted by the applicant on the above said product is correct? - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the ANTIOXIDANT WATER manufactured by the applicant is nothing but “Paan flavored water”, wherein Menthol crystals dissolved in propylene glycol is also added as a flavouring additive, for which the CSIR-CFTRI has licensed the applicant to undertake commercial production of the product. Hence, the view of the State Jurisdictional authority that the antioxidant water (i.e. Paan Flavored water) manufactured by the applicant is classifiable under HSN 2201 1010 is not correct, because of the exclusion clause of “nor flavoured” find place in the goods description under the tariff 2201 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975.
The Anti-Oxidant water, i.e., the 'Paan Flavored water', as certified by the CSIR-CFTRI is rightly classifiable under HSN 2202 1090 as All goods (including aerated waters], containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured, and taxable @ 28%, vide Sl. No 12 to Schedule IV of the Notification No 1/2017, Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, and compensation Cess at 12% vide Sl. No 4 of Notification No 1/2017-Compensation Cess (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
-
2024 (11) TMI 661
Cancellation of Petitioner’s GST registration effective 31 July 2021 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the peculiar facts of the present case, the Petitioner should be granted an opportunity to contest the Appeal. Admittedly, the Show Cause Notices referred to in the impugned order were issued on 26 August 2022 and 1 December 2022. By this date, the Petitioner’s registration had already been cancelled.
The Petitioner claims not to have received the Show-Cause Notices, and the service issue is unclear. In any event, the Petitioner’s registration has already been cancelled, and this position was reflected even on the department’s portal and cannot be ignored. After the order dated 11 October 2021, the department entertained the Petitioner’s request for cancellation and cancelled his registration. There is no dispute that factually, the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was made.
Therefore, upon a cumulative consideration of the above factors, we set aside the impugned order dated 24 March 2023 on the grounds of failure of natural justice. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, for fresh consideration of the Appeal. The Appeal must now be disposed of following law and on its own merits as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 31 December 2024.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 660
Cancellation of the registration of the petitioner on the premise that the statutory returns has not been filed - HELD THAT:- The issue stands covered by a series of judgments, commencing with the decision in TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , SALEM BAZAAR. [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein, under identical circumstances, this Court has directed the revocation of registration subject to conditions.
In view thereof, the benefit extended by this Court vide its earlier order in Suguna Cutpiece Centre's case, may be extended to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 659
Validity of the order placing the refund sanction order in abeyance - Section 108 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Section 54 prescribes the manner in which a person claiming refund may apply for disbursal of those amounts. Hereto, the Proviso to Section 54 (1) stipulates that a registered person claiming refund of sums standing in balance in the Electronic Cash Ledger would have to follow the procedure as prescribed. Of crucial significance is the usage of the phrase “in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 49” as they appear in Section 54 (1).
Undisputedly, there is no outstanding demand against the petitioner and which may have perhaps legitimately constituted one of the possible reasons to withhold the refund. While it is true that Section 54 while making specific provisions with respect to refund of unutilized ITC in terms of sub-sections (5) and (8) thereof, stops short of incorporating similar restrictions on utilization of the balance standing in the Electronic Cash Ledger in terms which may be described as explicit, the position, would be no different.
Section 108 empowers the revisional authority to place in abeyance “any order” made under the CGST Act and which in its opinion could be said to be illegal, improper or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - the contention of the petitioner cannot be sustained, who had sought to canvass a position of distinction which should be recognised to exist and governing sums which stand in balance in the Electronic Cash and Electronic Credit Ledgers.
The revisional authority appears to have doubted the ITC which was claimed by the writ petitioner in the tax period in question. While that conclusion and tentative view as expressed would be open to be tested under the CGST Act, the question which merits consideration is whether that conclusion would have justified the invocation of Section 108.
Admittedly, the allegation of wrongful availment of ITC is based on intelligence inputs received subsequent to the passing of the order dated 09 December 2022. The allegation of improper utilization of ITC is one which is clearly distinct and unconnected with the order sanctioning refund. While that allegation, when tested and examined, may ultimately lead to the creation of prospective liabilities, it has no correlation with the question of whether the order sanctioning refund was rendered invalid or was liable to be corrected under Section 108.
Absent any finding or conclusion having been rendered by the Commissioner in this respect, and which may have tended to indicate that the opinion expressed in the order dated 09 December 2022 was rendered unsustainable, illegal or invalid, the order impugned cannot be sustained - petition allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 658
Dismissal of appeal due to failure to submit certified copy of order - interpretation of Rule 108 of GGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is noted that when the order which is appealed against is issued or uploaded on the common portal and the same can be viewed by the Appellate Authority, there could be no requirement whatsoever of submitting a certified copy of such uploaded order to test its authenticity. In today’s day and age, insistence on “certified copy” of orders which can be obtained directly from the website of judicial and quasi judicial bodies is regressive in nature and puts a premium on needless archaism. For these reasons, the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
It has been held by this Court in the case of OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2024 (4) TMI 282 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], since the amendment which has come into effect from 26.12.2022 is clarificatory in nature, it would be applicable retrospectively and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal would not survive, in any case.
The impugned order dated 28th February 2023 passed by the respondent No.3 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellant authority to pass a fresh de novo order on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 657
Cancellation of GST number of the petitioner - violation of constitutional right - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, it is the right of the petitioner to carry on the business and it is the bounden duty of the respondent to provide the GST registration in the manner known to law. Even, if the petitioner company indulged in allegedly obtaining Section 29(2)(e) registration by means of fraud or not conducting the business from declared place in violation of provisions of the Act, the respondent can very well initiate legal action by invoking civil and penal provisions by way of civil and criminal cases. Instead of doing so, the respondent has outrightly cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner - in the present case, the respondent without resorting to take legal action invoking penal provisions, suspended the GST registration of the petitioner and deprived the petitioner from carrying on the business, which amounts to violation of fundamental right of the petitioner and prevented the petitioner, which, cannot be sustained.
In the present case, the suspension order was passed on 05.09.2024, for which, admittedly, the petitioner has filed their reply on 12.09.2024. When the reply was filed by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order, it is incumbent upon the respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It appears that the respondent has passed the impugned order without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner - the impugned proceedings dated 05.09.2024 are liable to be set aside.
The impugned proceedings dated 05.09.2024 are set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's reply dated 12.09.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law to revoke the suspension of GST registration - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 656
Constitutional Validity of Section 16 (4) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017 - violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the Constitution of India or not - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering Services vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax & others [2024 (9) TMI 1648 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'In view of the amendment by inserting Section 16(5) to the CGST / KGST Act, the present petition deserves to be disposed of relegating the parties to the original authority to implement and give effect to the said provisions after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hearing them and proceed further in accordance with law and by issuing certain directions in this regard.'
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the judgment of this Court in M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering’s case, the present petition also deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the said judgment.
-
2024 (11) TMI 655
Levy of GST and penalty - case of the petitioner is that they have executed the works for Railways and therefore, the tax for the works executed by them as contract services to the Railways have to be calculated in terms of Clause 3(v)(a) of the Notification No.11/2017, dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- The Principal Bench of this Court, in KEC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SALEM [2023 (2) TMI 1351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], has granted an interim order not to take any coercive steps pending the writ petition on the undertaking given by the learned Additional Advocate General. The same was followed in the subsequent writ petitions in KEC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SALEM & UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, NORTH BLOCK [2023 (6) TMI 1443 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
There shall be an interim order not to take any coercive steps pending these writ petitions - Post the matters after four weeks.
........
|
9911796707
