|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 324 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 324
Challenge to SCN issued by the Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax - HELD THAT:- From a plain reading of the show-cause notice, it is found that the Commissioner concerned has given elaborate reasons for invoking provisions of the IGST Act, 2017, CGST Act, 2017 and J&K GST Act, 2017 to initiate an action against the petitioner-Bank. The petitioner-Bank is well within its right to reply to the show cause notice and while replying the show-cause notice, the petitioner-Bank is also free to take the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to issue a show-cause notice. The bank shall further be entitled to plead and demonstrate before the Commissioner that the transaction in question is neither covered under the CGST Act, 2017, J&K GST Act, 2017 or the IGST Act, 2017.
It is not inclined to entertain this petition - petition dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 323
Violation of principles of natural justice - validity of ex parte assessment order issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) without assigning and disclosing reasons - HELD THAT:- The order solely rests on a failure on the part of the taxpayer to respond to the Show Cause Notice [SCN] which had been issued. It is opined that irrespective of whether the assessee had chosen to submit a response to the SCN which was issued or not, the AO was clearly obliged in law to assign and disclose reasons before finalizing the assessment.
As is ex facie evident from a reading of the order of 19 March 2024, the order clearly fails to meet those tests.
Petiton allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 322
Challenge to provisional order of attachment issued under Section 83 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In terms of the scheme of Section 83 of the said Act, a provisional attachment ordinarily seizes to have effect after expiry of one year from the date of the order made under Sub-section (1) thereof. Having regard thereto, and without going into the question as to whether the respondents can seek to implement their demand consequent upon dismissal of the appeal, I am of the view that the order of attachment passed under Section 83 (1) of the said Act dated 13th April, 2023 has in effect expired by efflux of time and cannot be enforced against the petitioner at this stage any further. The same shall, however, not stand in the way of the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of any independent cause of action or for enforcing the demand in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 321
Confirmation of demand u/s 74 of the GST Act - applicability of clarificatory circulars were issued on 01.08.2023 and 11.10.2024 - HELD THAT:- Apparently, from the impugned order, there is no consideration of the Circulars, as such, no useful purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. Thus, on the limited question of the circulars, which are binding on the department, not being taken into account, the order impugned dated 21.11.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order.
While doing so, the benefit of the Circular No.200/12/2023- GST dated 01.08.2023 and Circular No.236/30/2024-GST dated 11.10.2024, as claimed by the petitioner, shall be specifically considered by the adjudicating authority. The petitioner is also permitted to file an application claiming the benefit of the said circulars indicating the manner in which he is entitled to the benefit of the said Circulars, which shall be considered by passing a fresh order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 320
Challenge to the Garnishee Notice, the Show Cause Notice, and the impugned order - challenge to N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax, No. MGST-1524/C. R.6/Taxation-1 dated 16th January 2024 issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The issues raised in this Writ Petition are pending adjudication in several other Writ Petitions, including Writ Petition No.5146 of 2024 and Precaution Properties Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.
[2025 (3) TMI 250 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has infact already struck down these Notifications. Though on this issue, the Telangana High Court has held in favour of the Petitioner before it, the Telangana High Court came to the conclusion that because of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re-Cognizance for extension of limitation [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER] the assessment was not time barred. This order of the Telangana High Court has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and which is pending adjudication. Once these are the facts, it is opined that the Petitioner has not only made out a case for admission but also for grant of interim relief.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 319
Seeking to quash the proceedings of the respondent, consequential order and consequential attachment notice - wrongful availment of Input tax credit - short payment of GST - HELD THAT:- This Court directs the Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore at Madurai, to consider the appeal [Appeal No.372 of 2024] filed by the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 318
Maintainability of petition - appellant was non-suited on the ground that he did not exhaust the alternate appeal remedy - HELD THAT:- The order impugned in the writ petition as well as the order passed by the learned single Judge stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the respondent. The respondent shall issue fresh notice and decide the matter as per law.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 317
Refund of IGST - zero rated supply - duty drawback is claimed - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in M/s.Amit Cotton Industries Through Partner, Veljibhai Virjibhai Ranipa Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs [2019 (7) TMI 472 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] had categorically held that the aforesaid circular cannot prevail over Rule 96. The Hon'ble Division Bench observed that the circular will not save the situation for the Department.
This decision was followed by the Madras High Court in M/s.Precot Meridian Limited Vs The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs [2020 (1) TMI 90 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
It is also informed that several other High Courts have also taken the very same view. Since the learned single Judge granted relief to the writ petitioner only by following the existing legal position, interference with the said order is not warranted.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 316
Validity of summons issued by the Central Goods and Services Tax authorities, despite proceedings initiated by the State GST authorities - HELD THAT:- What the statute seeks to ensure and prohibit are parallel proceedings pertaining to assessment which may be drawn in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 73 and 74 or for that matter any other proceedings akin thereto by two separate sets of authorities.
A summons issued pursuant to a search would have to be distinguished from an actual assessment that an authority may choose to undertake. This since such a summons is principally intended to elicit information in respect of material that may have been gathered or comes to light in the course thereof. A search may lead to the discovery of material and information which may not have been even available at the stage of the original assessment proceedings - A search could, hypothetically speaking, also lead to the recovery of material that never formed part of the original assessment and was unknown to the assessing authority. It could, theoretically speaking, also have a bearing on the truthfulness of the disclosures made in the course of the original proceedings.
Of equal significance are the observations of the High Court in Vivek Narsaria [2024 (1) TMI 809 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] when it held that Section 6(2)(b) is principally concerned with “a chain of a particular event” and of proceedings being “interrelated”. The search which constitutes the basis for the issuance of summons cannot possibly be construed as being related to the earlier assessments or the pending notice proceedings since, undisputedly, it was undertaken post those events.
There are no justification to interdict the summons which have been issued and which, as was noticed above, are only in aid of proceedings that may be ultimately drawn or initiated - petition dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 315
Permission to summon the witness from the GST Department - Discharge to onus to prove - HELD THAT:- The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the case is still at the stage of evidence of respondent. Since the GST record was stated to be not in power, possession and control of the respondent, the Court allowed the respondent to summon the witness from GST Department, subject to cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
The onus to prove its case completely lies on the plaintiff. It is for the plaintiff to decide which witness is required to be summoned and with what record and in case the summoned record is found to be not relevant, obviously, the same would not be looked into, but at this stage, the plaintiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon the witness to prove its case, in its own way.
There is no merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 314
Denial of input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017 (CGST/SGST Acts) for the period from October 2018 to March 2019 - HELD THAT:- This writ petition will stand disposed of setting aside Ext.P2 order and directing the respondent to pass fresh orders taking note of the provisions contained in sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, which has been notified with effect from 27-09-2024, and also extending to the petitioner the benefit of the directions issued by this Court in paragraph No.101 of the judgment of this Court in M. Trade Links [2024 (6) TMI 288 - KERALA HIGH COURT].
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 313
Exemption from service tax - lump-sum amount received for Health care Services to be provided for 20 years by the applicant as “Diamond Plan” - applicability of Sr. No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax. - HELD THAT:- The appellant has now vide Annexures H and I to the appeal papers, attached only a single sheet of paper listing out the details of Diamond plan and has also submitted a copy of the bill of supply No. 3/2021-22 dated 12.8.2021, issued to one of their customers.
The only option left is to reject the appeal filed by the appellant on the grounds that they have not provided the relevant documents to enable us to decide the matter.
Appeal rejected.
-
2025 (3) TMI 312
Appropriate classification & rate of GST applicable on supply of PVC floor mats [Cars] under CGST and GGST - HELD THAT:- The PVC floor mats for use in cars supplied by the applicant is classifiable under CTH 8708 & would be leviable to GST @ 28%.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 311
Classification of goods - Treated Water’ obtained from CETP - exemption from GST by virtue of SI. No. 99 of the Exemption Notification No. 02/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 (as amended) - HELD THAT:- The appellant has not controverted the findings except for the averment that it is not a de-mineralized water. The appellant has also produced a laboratory certificate, which was not produced before the GAAR. It is not inclined to accept the certificate produced by the appellant because [a] the same is being produced at an appellate stage; [b] the certificate nowhere states that the laboratory is an accredited laboratory and [c] there is no mention about the manner in which the sample was drawn. It goes without saying that drawal of sample is sacrosanct, failing which the credibility of the results is questionable.
The Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling has held that treated water obtained from CETP, is de-mineralized water and will therefore not be eligible for the benefit of the notification Nos. No. 2/2017-CT(R) dated 28.6.2017 as amended vide notification No. 7/2022-CT(R) dated 13.7.2022, in the case of M/s. Mannarai CETP P Ltd. [2024 (7) TMI 358 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU].
While circular No. 52/26/2018-GST dated, 9.8.2018, clarifies that supply of drinking water for public purposes, if it is not supplied in a sealed container, is exempt from GST, likewise, circular no. 179/11/2022-GST dated 3.8.2022 clarified that supply of treated sewage water, falling under heading 2201, is exempt under GST and that the word ‘purified’ is being omitted from the above-mentioned entry vide notification No. 7/2022-Central Tax (Rate), dated 13.7.2022.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 310
Valuation of work contract service for charging GST - transaction of sale of goods by Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. (TCMPL) to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) on High Seas Sale basis in terms of Contract No. 44AC9100-EPCC-1 would be covered under Entry No. 8(b) of Schedule III of the CGST Act or not.
Divisible contract or not - HELD THAT:- The GAAR vide its impugned ruling dated 5.1.2024 after dwelling into what is a works contract in terms of section 2(119), ibid, and further relying on the judgement of Kone Elevator India Private Limited [2014 (5) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] held that [i] works contract for EPC work pertaining to EPCC-1 project; & [ii] supply of imported materials for the said project, is a lumpsum turnkey EPC contract & hence division of a turnkey EPC contract into two parts, is legally not tenable.
The reliance of the appellant on the judgement of BSNL [2006 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and Gannon Dunkerley & Co., [1958 (4) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT], to aver that it is a divisible contract is not tenable owing to the fact that in terms of the contract the applicant was contractually bound/liable to supply both the goods and services.
Levy of tax on that part of the goods which are sold on HSS basis - HELD THAT:- In terms of Schedule III, read with section 7 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017, supply on High Sea Sale basis, is treated as neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services. It is found that the impugned ruling clearly states that the EPC contract encompasses both the supply of goods and services and that in terms of the contract, the appellant is liable to provide the goods [supplied on HSS basis]. Therefore, the submission that the value is not to be included in the transaction value in respect of works contract service is legally not tenable more so since as is already mentioned, the applicant is contractually bound/liable to supply both the goods and the services. The averments even otherwise, stand answered in paragraph 34 of the impugned ruling. Hence, the finding that in terms of section 15, ibid, the value of such imported goods invariably forms an integral part of the Transaction value, agreed upon. Thus, the averment that the GAAR had mis-interpreted the provisions of section 15 (2) (b) of the CGST Act, 2017 is not a plausible argument.
Conclusion - i) The value of goods sold on HSS basis should be included in the transaction value for GST calculation. ii) The sale of goods on HSS basis was determined to be neither a supply of goods nor services under the CGST Act.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 309
Bogus purchases - bogus accommodation bills - hawala transactions from certain parties who were only providing accommodation sale bills - delay filling SLP
As decided by HC [2022 (2) TMI 1482 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] purchases cannot be rejected without disturbing the sales in case of a trader and additions limited to the extent of bringing the G.P. rate on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases.
HELD THAT:- There is a gross delay of 628 days in filing this Special Leave Petition. Following the order passed by this Court in Hasmukh J Visaria [2024 (3) TMI 1415 - SC ORDER] this Special Leave Petition also stands dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2025 (3) TMI 308
TP Adjustment - ITAT is justified in restricting the adjustment only on international transactions where the assessee has selected TNMM and applied the same on entity level - HELD THAT:- Although it is correct that Income Tax Appeal [2024 (9) TMI 1703 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we cannot overlook the fact that at that time, the decisions in Spicer India Ltd. [2023 (7) TMI 139 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Hindustan Unilever Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1245 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had not been delivered. The decisions of the Coordinate Bench hold that benchmarking should be done only on associated enterprise or related party transactions and not with respect to the entire turnover.
In fact, in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra.), the learned counsel for the revenue had fairly stated that this issue concerning transfer pricing adjustment stood concluded against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by decisions of this Court in Tara Jewellers Exports (P) Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1130 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], Petro Araldite (P.) Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 1628 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
There is no point in admitting this appeal, which now no longer raises any substantial question of law.
-
2025 (3) TMI 307
Validity of reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - search proceedings and the seizure made pursuant to the search conducted - HELD THAT:- The assessment order that was passed on 31.03.2016 u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961, may have given rise to an option either to invoke the machinery of revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, on the ground that the assessment order dated 31.03.2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, or that there was income that had escaped assessment.
Although there was no suppression of fact in the return that was filed on 22.02.2016, merely because amounts were recovered from the petitioner, the associate firms, and related party, itself would not justify the conclusion that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to fully disclose all materials that were required for passing the assessment order dated 31.03.2016, and there should have been a live link between the information that was surfaced for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to reopen the assessment and to pass fresh re-assessment order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
To invoke the machinery under Section 148 of the IT Act as it stood till 31.03.2021, the Courts have repeatedly held that the term “reason to believe” means that Assessing Officer must have some tangible material passing before assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 of the IT Act. A reference is made to Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT]
The dispute in the present case pertains to the Assessment Year 2014-2015. It can therefore hardly be said that the Assessing Officer was unaware of the search proceedings and the seizure made pursuant to the search conducted on 03.09.2013 resulting in seizure of a sum of Rs. 1,77,50,045/- from the petitioner Firm, and a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- from the petitioner's partner, and gold worth of Rs. 38,69,168/-, which was recovered from M/s.VIP City. Writ Petition is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 306
Depreciation claimed on goodwill u/s 32, albeit post demerger - depreciation claimed by the appellant for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 - HELD THAT:- We are concerned with a Scheme which came into effect in FY 2013-14 and the Proviso thus being pertinent only for AY 2014-15. The said provision could have had no bearing on the issue of depreciation claimed by the appellant in AY 2015-16 or 2016-17.
As decided in Padmini Products (P) Ltd. [2020 (10) TMI 424 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 5th proviso to Sec 32 of the Act restricts aggregate deduction both by the predecessor and the successor and if in a particular year there is no aggregate deduction, the 5th proviso does not apply. Thus, it is axiomatic that until and unless it is the case of aggregate deduction, the proviso has no role to play. The 5th proviso in any case will apply only in the year of succession and not in subsequent years and also in respect of overall quantum of depreciation in the year of succession.
Tribunal has failed to even notice or examine the issue from that angle. Its judgment is based solely on the applicability of the Fifth Proviso to Section 32 (1) and which we, in any case, have found was clearly not germane to AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17.
In view of the above in our considered opinion, therefore, the ends of justice would warrant the matter being remitted to the board of the Tribunal for examining the appeal afresh and bearing in mind the issue which stands flagged hereinabove.
We accordingly allow the instant appeal and set aside the Order of the Tribunal dated 03 February 2023.
-
2025 (3) TMI 305
Condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC as required to avail the concessional tax rate prescribed u/s 115BAA - HELD THAT:- This Court, after carefully considering the submissions and examining the scope, purport and object of Section 119 (2) (b), finds that identical submissions were made before this Court and the same was rejected in[2024 (11) TMI 1434 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as held Respondent Authority/Board has completely mis-directed itself in not examining if the failure to consider the claim of option to discharge tax under Section 115BAA on the ground of failure on the fact of the petitioner to file Form 10-IC within the period stipulated under Section 115BAA would cause “genuine hardship” to the petitioner/assessee and thus it is desirable as expedient to permit the petitioner to file Form 10-IC in support of its option under Section 115BAA and deal with the same on merit. The facts narrated supra leaves no room for doubt that the rejection of the petition under Section 119 (2) (b) to permit the petitioner to file Form 10-IC in support of its exercise of option under Section 115BAA of the Act would cause genuine hardship and it is desirable and expedient to permit the petitioner to file Form 10-IC in support of its claim / option under Section 115BAA of the Act and deal with such claim on merits in accordance with law.
The impugned order is set-aside, the respondent shall keep the portal open to enable the petitioner to upload the Form 10-IC and the petitioner shall file the Form 10-IC within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
........
|
9911796707
