|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 412 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 412
Violation of principles of natural justice - Service of notice - impugned order is challenged on the premise that the notices and orders were uploaded under the “view additional notices and orders” tab on the GST Portal, thereby, the petitioner was unaware of the initiated proceedings and thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 25.06.2024 is set aside. The petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed taxes as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 411
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order came to be passed without considering the petitioner's request for time - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 07.08.2024 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above deposit is not paid or objections are not filed within the stipulated period, i.e., four weeks respectively from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order of assessment shall stand restored.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 410
Inaction on the part of the respondents in not refunding the amount of GST collected from the petitioner in the course of the execution of the contract that was awarded to the petitioner - grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of repeated approach being made to the respondents, there is a total inaction on the part of the respondents so far as refund of GST is concerned - HELD THAT:- The writ petition as of now stands disposed of directing the State Authorities to immediately process the claim of the petitioner so far as refund of GST is concerned, after due verification of facts and also the entitlement part of the petitioner is concerned. Let an appropriate decision be taken keeping in view the earlier order of the Central Government dated 28.01.2020 and 06.06.2018 (Annexure-P/2) and all subsequent orders also passed in this regard by the Central Government.
Let an appropriate decision be taken within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 409
Challenge to impugned order on the premise that the same was made in violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order set aside, directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed taxes and allowing them to present their objections afresh before the adjudicating authority.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 408
Challenge to assessment order - mismatch between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B - Revenue would submit that since the application for rectification filed by the petitioner dated 22.03.2024 is still pending, the same will be considered and disposed of in accordance with law - HELD THAT:- The respondent is directed to consider the application for rectification filed by the petitioner dated 23.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 407
Challenge to impugned order passed by the respondent - Difference in outward supply between GSTR 3B and Books of accounts - Non filing of returns in FORM GSTR 9 & 9C - Non-payment of tax under RCM for the freight charges - Non-payment of tax for the private coaching fee receipts - HELD THAT:- Petitioner submits that they would pay the balance remaining out of the 25% after deducting the monies which is stated to have been paid, which was not objected to by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent who would seek the liberty of this Court to verify if the above statement is correct.
On complying with the above conditions, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall file their objections within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 406
Challenge to impugned order passed by the respondent relating to the assessment year 2019-20 - petitioner would submit that they would pay the balance remaining out of the 25% after deducting the monies which is stated to have been paid - HELD THAT:- On complying with the above conditions, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall file their objections within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 30.08.2024 is hereby set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 405
Reversal of ineligible and excess claimed blocked ITC - Mismatch Between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A - Mismatch Between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 - petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to produce the relevant documentary evidences, to which the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.
HELD THAT:- The petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed taxes as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order dated 03.07.2024 is set aside.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 404
Seeking leave to amend the Petition and challenge Show Cause Notice dated 12 February 2020 - HELD THAT:- Instead of allowing the Petitioner to challenge the Show Cause Notice at this belated stage, we think that interest of justice would be better served if the Petitioner responds to the Show Cause Notice by raising all permissible defences, including the defence that the matter is covered by certain decisions of this Court. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that reply will be filed to the Show Cause Notice within two weeks from today.
If the reply is indeed filed within two weeks from today, the Adjudicating Authority must consider such reply and the contentions raised therein and dispose of the Show Cause Notice by following the law and on its own merits.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 403
Challenge to attachment order - maximum period of attachment as provided under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has come to an end - HELD THAT:- In view of the submissions which have been made and the provisions contained in Section 83 of the Act of 2017, it is not required to keep this matter pending but to dispose off this writ petition with direction to Respondents No. 2 and 3-Punjab National Bank to allow the petitioner to operate its bank account unless the attachment of the account is in respect of some proceedings other than the one in connection with which order of attachment was earlier passed on 26.06.2023.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 402
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled due to non-compliance in filing returns, on account of the health condition of the Petitioner. Furthermore, the time limit for filing a statutory appeal against the cancellation order had also expired, and the petitioner claims that they were unaware of the notices and communications sent through the GST Portal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the reason provided by the petitioner for non-compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act within the stipulated time appears to be genuine.
The GST registration is restored subject to and conditional upon fulfilling the conditions imposed - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 401
Issuance of a single consolidated show cause notice for more than one financial year - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has not made out any case for grant of relief on the ground that Ext.P1 show cause notice is a consolidated notice for several years mentioned above. The judgment of the Karnataka High Court, in M/S. BANGALORE GOLF CLUB VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU [2024 (10) TMI 116 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in TITAN COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. P. MANIVANNAN VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE [2024 (1) TMI 619 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where again the question considered was in relation to the proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act. The court in M/s. Banglore Golf Club held 'Based on the established legal principles and the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court finds that the respondent erred in issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple assessment years, spanning from 2019 to 2023-24.'
Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has been given a very short time to reply to the show cause notice which runs to 1622 pages (including the documents relied upon), some reasonable time must be permitted to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice.
Accordingly, it is directed that the time for filing a reply to Ext.P1 show cause notice shall be extended till 21.11.2024. Since the extension of time is at the request of the petitioner, any limitation for passing orders for any of the financial years will also stand extended by similar period i.e. the period from 21.10.2024 (last date for filing reply as per show cause notice) till 21.11.2024 will stand excluded.
-
2025 (1) TMI 400
Seeking grant of bail - accused petitioner has created fake firms and has issued goods/ invoices and has pass on the input tax credit - offence under section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is found that the present case has been registered by the Department on the basis of the statements of one Mr. Ashutosh Garg and the Department has relied upon the statements of Mr. Ravi Kumar, Mr. Jatin Gupta, Sanket Gupta and Mr. Anil Kumar. Along-with the complaint, the prosecution has submitted the list of witnesses (Annex.A), where only 5 Officers of the Department have been made witnesses and none of the persons named above, whose statements recorded under section 70 of the Act of 2017, have been incorporated as witnesses to the matter - It is a settled law that until and unless these above- named persons are made witnesses or accused, their statements cannot be relied upon because it is the right of the accused to cross-examine the witnesses to prove the trustworthiness of their version.
The allegation against the accused petitioner is that he has issued fake invoices so as to pass on the input tax credit which has caused huge loss to the economy by evasion of GST - The investigation is continuing for the last more than one year and the complaint has already been filed against the accused petitioner. The Department has not been even able to find out that how much input tax credit has been claimed by which of the beneficiaries. During the course of arguments, on a query put- forth by the Court, the learned Public Prosecutor on instructions stated that in cases registered under section 132 of the Act of 2017, the Competent Authority can continue the investigation for a maximum period of five years. He on instructions of the Department Officers also stated that in the present case, they will conclude the investigation within maximum further one year.
Once a complaint has been filed on the basis of investigation made by the prosecution, in a criminal jurisprudence no further evidence collected, can be used against such an accused person.
Conclusion - The present case was registered on the basis of statement of Mr. Ashutosh Garg, who is also said to have been involved in the evasion of GST by creating fake invoices in the names of fake firms to pass on input tax credit. The amount of alleged input tax credit wherein Mr. Ashutosh Garg is found involved, is more than the alleged input tax credit. The maximum punishment for the offence alleged against the accused petitioner is five years and presently the accused petitioner has already suffered the custody of five months.
This Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case deems just and proper to release the accused-petitioner on bail - bail application allowed subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 399
Seeking for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to reimburse the extra GST amount paid @ 6% from 01.01.2022 to 30.09.2022 along with interest - grievance of the petitioner is that despite the enhancement from 01.01.2022, the respondents are paying the running bills with 12% GST and the petitioner is paying 18% GST - HELD THAT:- Respondent No.4 which is a State GST Department, according to which also the rate of GST has been enhanced from 12% to 18% and same is liable to be paid by respondent No.2 which is a Government Entity.
Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the difference of GST amount to the petitioner @ 6% from 01.01.2022 to 30.09.2022 with a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 398
Whether order of disallowing credit could be passed by the Competent Authority i.e., Deputy Commissioner, State Tax without hearing the petitioner? - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, under Rule 86A of the RGST Rules, 2017/the CGST Rules, 2017, the authority competent to disallow debit/block credit is the Commissioner or an officer authorised on his behalf, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner. The law further requires that such an officer having reasons to believe that credit of input tax available in the electronic credit ledger has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible as provided in clauses (a) and (b), may for the reasons to be recorded in writing, not allow debit of an amount equivalent to such credit in electronic credit ledger for discharge of any liability under Section 49 or for claim of any refund of any unutilised credit.
In this case, the notice was given by an authority who was not competent to take decision i.e., Joint Commissioner, whereas, the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who is a competent authority but who did not give notice, nor heard the petitioner. This prima facie appears to be in utter violation of principles of natural justice - The submission of learned Additional Advocate General that the authority, who gave opportunity of hearing, collected material and forwarded the same to the competent authority fulfills the requirement of principles of natural justice, cannot be accepted at this stage.
The action of the respondents in blocking the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner is kept in abeyance and the respondents are restrained from giving effect to decision of blocking credit ledger of the petitioner.
List this case for final hearing at motion stage in the last week of November, 2024.
-
2025 (1) TMI 397
Rejection of refund of inputs on account of inverted rate of duty structure - Scope of the term ‘Services’ in the formula for refund - HELD THAT:- The instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner-Firm to move a fresh application seeking refund in the spectrum of service, which is covered by the amendment in law. Such application shall be decided by the respondents strictly in accordance with the retrospective amendment made in the Rule 89 Sub-Rule (5) of CGST Rules, 2017 and also in accordance with the other laws applicable. Accordingly, the respondents shall be required to operate the GST portal.
-
2025 (1) TMI 396
Vires of section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, identical to the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - seeking entitlement for Input Tax Credit (ITC) - HELD THAT:- Rule, returnable on 29th September, 2022. Notice to the learned Attorney General of India is already issued as per order dated 1.12.2020.
-
2025 (1) TMI 395
Seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first to fifth respondents to disburse the Service Tax, Interest and Penalty amount to the petitioner for the services rendered by him - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of V. GOPALAKRISHNAN VERSUS THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, THE ENGINEER CHIEF, THE CHIEF ENGINEER, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, DINDIGUL. [2023 (7) TMI 1532 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein, a direction was given to the Principal Secretary of Public Works Department to consider the case of the petitioners therein.
This Writ Petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to approach the first to fourth respondents to reimburse the tax on account of increase in the rate of tax after implementation of GST, applying principle in Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
-
2025 (1) TMI 394
Classification of goods - Aorom Herbal Smokes - to be classified under HSN 24029010 (tobacco substitutes) or HSN 3004 (medicinal products)? - rate of GST to be paid by appellant on sales of Aorom Herbal Smokes - whether the product is a medicinal cigarettes? - HELD THAT:- In para 10.2 of the impugned ruling, GAAR reproduced section 3 (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which states that Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unnai Drug, includes all medicines intended for internal or external use for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease or disorder in human beings or animals, and manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in the authoritative books of Ayurved, Siddha and Unani Tibb systems of medicine, specified in the First Schedule. GAAR, further goes on record that the appellant was not in a position to substantiate/pin point the authoritative books of Ayurved, according to which the subject goods have been manufactured. On being specifically asked during the course of personal hearing, the appellant failed to inform the name of the authoritative book of Ayurved. Further, during the course of personal hearing it was also informed that they do not hold any license permitting them to manufacture the said goods. This being the fact, leads us to a conclusion the appellant has failed in making out a case of their product falling under the category of ‘medicinal cigarettes’.
Whether the cigarettes manufactured by the appellant, containing certain types of products are specifically formulated to discourage the habit of smoking? - HELD THAT:- The product of the appellant is a substitute of cigarette and is also manufactured and marketed with the said aim in mind. Therefore, the averment of the appellant in para 13 to the effect that “It is submitted that such understanding is factually incorrect as the herbal smokes manufactured by the appellant are not intended to assist the smokers to stop smoking”, belics fact - the product is classifiable under HSN 24029010 more so since it is not a medicinal cigarette and secondly since the appellant himself, in his brochure claims that the product in question, is a substitute to cigarette and is also intended to addicts who really want to quit the smoking habit.
Conclusion - The product of the appellant is a substitute of cigarette and is also manufactured and marketed with the said aim in mind.
The appeal filed by appellant M/s Aorom Herbotech is dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 393
Relevant time of supply - What is the time of supply for the purpose of discharge of GST in respect of mobilization advance received by it for construction services? - HELD THAT:- A conjoint reading of both the sections 2 (31) and 13, leads to a conclusion that the liability to pay tax on services shall arise at the time of supply, which will be the earliest of the date of issue of invoice by the supplier, if it is issued within the prescribed period or the date of receipt of payment, whichever is earlier. The explanation to section 13 (2) through a deeming provision states that the supply shall be deemed to have been made to the extent it is covered by the invoice or, as the case may be, the payment & that “the date of receipt of payment” shall be the date on which the payment is entered in the books of account of the supplier or the date on which the payment is credited to his bank account, whichever is earlier.
The averment of the appellant that the mobilization advance is not in the nature of payment; that it is merely a transaction in money; that consideration excludes deposit, is not a legally tenable argument. Further, the findings of the GAAR concurred with, that the time of supply in respect of the mobilization advance/advance payment received by the appellant in respect of supply of service, is the date of receipt of such advance.
The question of applicability of notification No. 66/2017-CT (Rate) dated 15.11.2017, does not arise, owing to the fact that it is already held that in terms of the agreement between the appellant and MORT&H, the supply is in respect of services. The said notification is applicable only in respect of supply of goods.
Conclusion - The time of supply for GST purposes is the date of receipt of the mobilization advance.
The appeal filed by appellant M/s S.P. Singla Constructions P Ltd. is rejected.
........
|
9911796707
