|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 412 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 212
Constitutional validity of provisions of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Submissions also made that the Central Government itself though prospectively by notification dated 08.10.2024 has amended Rule 86 (4B) (b) wherein the provision 'in contravention of sub-rule (10) of Rule 96' has been omitted.
HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
-
2025 (1) TMI 211
Challenge to order u/s 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - appeal to GST Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Since, the order has been passed by the 1st respondent as an Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, an appeal lies before the GST Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
However, the Tribunal is yet to be constituted, although it has been notified. The reading of the impugned order indicates that it is based on the Circular No.135/05-2020-GST dated 31.03.2020. While dealing with an identical situation, this Court had taken note of the decisions of the Guwahati High Court, Calcutta High Court, Rajasthan High Court and Delhi High Court, wherein these Courts have struck down the above circular and passed order in M/S. EVEREADY SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR S. CHANDRAKUMAR. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, DINDIGUL [2024 (7) TMI 1160 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] by remitting the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order de-novo, in the light of the striking down of the above circular.
The case remanded back to the 2nd respondent to pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (1) TMI 210
Territorial jurisdiction - impugned order challenged on the premise that the impugned order levies tax on supplies outside the State of Tamil Nadu, thereby suffers from want of jurisdiction - demand in excess of the amount of taxes proposed in the SCN - Violation of mandate contained in Section 75 (7) of the Act - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In view of the submissions/ consent of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the Respondents, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall remit a sum of Rs.1 crore within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to complying with the above condition, it is open to the petitioner to submit its reply within a period of two weeks thereafter treating the impugned order as show cause notice. If any reply/ documents are filed, the Respondent authority shall proceed to complete the assessment in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 209
Challenge to order u/s 73 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Section 61, by sub-section (2) requires consideration of explanation furnished. Sub-section (3) says, in case no satisfactory explanation is furnished, the proper officer may initiate appropriate action under, inter alia, section 73.
Initiation of the proceeding under section 73 was clearly without jurisdiction. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. Petitioner’s said reply dated 29th July, 2021 is to be dealt with under section 61 and thereafter revenue can proceed.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 208
Entitlement to Input Tax Credit (ITC) - extension of time for filing return till 30th November, 2021 - HELD THAT:- Petitioner has moved Court invoking writ jurisdiction on not having filed appeal. In the circumstances, circular dated 15th October, 2024 issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST policy wing requiring petitioner to apply for rectification is to be complied with. This observation is on noticing that the circular was issued after the writ petition was presented. Considering departmental procedure is now in place for petitioner to comply with in having impugned order rectified and time for making the application is still available to petitioner, the writ petition is disposed off accordingly.
-
2025 (1) TMI 207
Challenge to proceedings under Section 129 of GST Act - Seizure of goods - E-Way Bill not filled - intent to evade tax or not - HELD THAT:- The facts which are admitted and disclosed from the records are these. There was no discrepancy in the goods which were physically found at the time of inspection and details of goods recorded in the E-Way Bill available with the driver of the vehicle. The authorities below have not found any intent to evade tax.
This Court has set its face against initiation of proceedings under Section 129 of GST Act in the wake of mere technical breaches. When substantial compliance of the provisions is disclosed and when the physical inspection of goods tallies with the goods declared in the E-Way Bill and no intent of tax evasion is made out, proceedings under Section 129 of GST Act become vitiated.
In VSL ALLOYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [2018 (5) TMI 455 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] this Court has held 'In the present case, all the documents were accompanied the goods, details are duly mentioned which reflects from the perusal of the documents. Merely of none mentioning of the vehicle no. in Part-B cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods. We hold that the order of seizure is totally illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.2 to consider and pass an appropriate reasoned order. In this case, no reasons are assigned nor any discussion is mentioned in the impugned order of seizure and notice of penalty.'
Conclusion - When substantial compliance of the provisions is disclosed and when the physical inspection of goods tallies with the goods declared in the E-Way Bill and no intent of tax evasion is made out, proceedings under Section 129 of GST Act become vitiated.
The impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax Grade-2 (Appeal)-I, State Tax, Noida is unsustainable and is quashed - petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 206
Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the impugned notice, primarily, on the ground that any decision taken pursuant to the impugned notice would be violative of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is found that the expected response from the Petitioner is already reflected at S. No. 9 of Part-B of the impugned notice. That apart, the Petitioner also claims to have filed a detailed representation explaining its position.
The ends of justice would be served by disposing of this Petition by directing the concerned tax authority to take a final decision in the matter, after considering the representation stated to have been filed by the Petitioner and the response reflected against S. No. 9 of Part-B of the impugned notice.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 205
Challenge to order issued u/s 130 of the CGST/SGST Act - petitioner's registration had been canceled prior to the proceedings - transportation of goods without proper documentation - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has not made out any case for interference with Ext.P4. Admittedly certain goods were being transported without the cover of any documents. The case of the petitioner that he is a dealer whose registration had already been canceled and the goods that were being transported are items, the expiry date of which was already over and the goods have been taken over/purchased by a person named Lohi cannot be accepted for more reasons than one. Even assuming that the case of the petitioner now put forth before this Court is correct, the registered person ought to have transported the goods under cover of proper documents. The fact that the registration of the petitioner was canceled does not absolve him of the liability to comply with the provisions of the GST laws and even on the petitioner’s own showing there was a sale of goods by the petitioner to the registered person for a consideration of Rs. 1,90,000/-. Therefore it cannot be said that the proceedings under Section 130 were wrongly initiated and concluded against the petitioner.
Conclusion - Cancellation of registration does not exempt a person from compliance with GST provisions. Proper documentation is mandatory for the transportation of goods.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 204
Amendment made to Section112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 substituting “twenty per cent” pre deposit to “ten per cent” for maintaining an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Tribunal - HELD THAT:- As of now pre-deposit has been reduced to “ten per cent” but however, the same is made effective only from 01.11.2024. It is an admitted position that the GST Tribunals have not been constituted as yet and there is no possibility of an appeal being filed prior to 01.11.2024. In such circumstance we direct that the assessee on payment of “ten per cent” of the tax amounts in dispute shall be entitled to stay of recovery till the Tribunal is constituted and an appeal is filed within such term as provided therein.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 203
Seeking withdrawal of the writ petition to avail the appellate remedy - HELD THAT:- Liberty granted, but with just exceptions as to limitation which will have to be considered by the Appellate Authority as per the statute and in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2025 (1) TMI 202
Challenge to order issued under Section 73 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings when the respondent No.3 has already initiated the same by issuing the notice in Form GST DRC-01A dated 05.12.2023 - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice, returnable on 05.12.2024.
By way of ad-interim relief no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner qua the impugned order only.
-
2025 (1) TMI 201
Rejection of refund application filed by the petitioner on the ground that it is filed belatedly and beyond the time permitted by Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Rule 90 of the CGST Rules deals with acknowledgement of an application for refund. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 90 of the CGST Rules no doubt requires the filing of a fresh refund application after rectification of deficiencies pointed out in respect of the first application. However, the said sub-rule does not contemplate that the date of the fresh application has to be considered for the purposes of determining the period of limitation for filing an application for refund under sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts - The rejection of the application for refund filed by the petitioner by Ext.P4 communication on the ground that the second application filed by the petitioner was beyond the time specified in subsection (1) of Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts cannot be sustained in law.
Conclusion - The date of the original refund application should be considered for time limit purposes under Section 54, provided deficiencies are rectified. Rule 90(3) should not reset the statutory time limit.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 200
Classification of chewing tobacco - to be classified under the heading 2403 99 10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under Heading 2401 20 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975? - demanding higher compensation cess leviable under the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 at 160% at Serial No.26 to Notification No.1/2017 - Compensation Cess (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madras Vs. Bell Mark Tobacco Co.[1966 (10) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT], while dealing with the levy of sales tax under the provisions of Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 concluded that the chewing tobacco was the manufactured product following the decision in State of Madras Vs. Swasthik Tobacco Factory [1965 (12) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT]. There, the Court has held that the expression "in respect of the goods" in rule 5 (1) (i) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, means "on the goods", and therefore only the excise duty paid on the goods sold by the dealer is deductible.
The petitioner continued to file returns and did not surrender the GST registration. It appears that on 12.11.2018, the petitioner has stated that, the petitioner has also supplied chewing tobacco by classifying the product under heading 2403 99 10 by paying GST compensation cess at 160 % in terms of Serial No.26 of Notification No. 1/2017 – Compensation Cess (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 even during the period of Jan 2018 to May 2018 and that from 1st June 2018 to September 2018, paid cess at 72 % by classifying the same product under Tariff Heading 24 03 99 20 - It is the elementary principle that insofar as the classification of products are concerned an assessee cannot change the classification merely to take advantage or benefit of any rate/concession. Classification can also not be altered because the product will attract higher rate of duty/tax. In this case, admittedly, the respective petitioners have classified their products under Heading 2403 99 10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is similar to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which are based on HSN Classification.
Tariff Heading 2403 99 20 pertains to “Preparations Containing Chewing Tobacco”. Such preparations are clearly banned in terms of the Government orders issued by Government of Tamil Nadu under regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011. The classification adopted by the said petitioner under 2403 99 20 would not have permitted the petitioner to manufacture and sell the products - There is no difference between the Tariff classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under Tariff Heading 2403 99 10 and under Customs Tarrif Act, 1975. Under the respective Customs Tarrif Act, 1975, goods falling under the main Tariff Heading 2403 is “Other Manufactured Tobacco And Manufactured Tobacco Substitutes; “Homogenised” or “Reconstituted” Tobacco, Tobacco Extracts Essences”.
Conclusion - The petitioners' products are to be classified under Heading 2403 99 10, and the Advance Ruling decisions are binding. The food safety regulations do not affect GST classification.
Petiton dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 199
Challenge to order passed under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 - delay in filing the appeal - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the fact that the determination on merits would not only involve detailed scrutiny of records but also determination on factual issues and taking note of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted, it would be prudent at this stage to remand the matter to the appellate authority under 107 of the said Act subject to the petitioner’s making payment of 20 per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute with the respondents towards additional pre-deposit and upon payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 198
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - All that client wants is an opportunity of hearing pursuant to he being permitted to file reply - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Revenue is directed to accept petitioner’s reply to the show-cause notice, if submitted on or before 11th September, 2024 along with website copy of this order. Revenue will consider the reply and pass order afresh. For the purpose, impugned order is set aside.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 197
Challenge to assessment order issued u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 - non-application of mind on the part of the first respondent - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the petitioner duly filed a reply to the show cause notice on 08.02.2024. However, without considering this reply, the first respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order as if no reply had been submitted, clearly demonstrating a total non-application of mind on the part of the first respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
The matter is remanded to the first respondent, who shall consider the reply filed by the petitioner on 08.02.2024 and, after issuing a clear 14-days notice specifying a date of personal hearing, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (1) TMI 196
Levy of GST - differential amount received by the petitioner due to foreign exchange rate fluctuation constitutes "turnover" or not - entitlement for deductions from turnover - HELD THAT:- While it may be a fact that the differential amount that is sought to be taxed by the Revenue in fact represents the benefit of an upward exchange rate fluctuation that accrued to the petitioner, it does not detract from the fact that what was received by the petitioner was nothing but the consideration for the sale of equipment’s that it had contracted to supply. Under the KGST Act, the word “turnover” means the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought or sold, supplied or distributed by a dealer, either directly or through another, on his own account or on account of others, whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration, provided that the proceeds of the sale by a person of agricultural or horticultural produce, grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant, or otherwise, shall be excluded from his turnover. Explanation (1A) to the definition makes it clear that the turnover in respect of a works contract shall be the aggregate amount received or receivable by the dealer for the transfer of goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of such contract.
Whether, on account of the exchange rate fluctuation, the benefit of which accrued to the petitioner, the receipt in the hands of the petitioner partook of a nature different from turnover for the purposes of taxation? - HELD THAT:- What accrued to the petitioner was nothing but a realisation in Indian Rupees of the turnover attributable to the works contract performed by it, which was expressed in US Dollars. Further, insofar as the permissible deductions under the KGST Act and Rules have already been granted to the petitioner, the differential amount in the hands of the petitioner represents differential turnover that has not been subjected to tax.
Conclusion - Exchange rate fluctuations affecting the sale price in foreign currency do not alter the nature of the amount as turnover under the KGST Act. The statutory definition of turnover encompasses such amounts when converted to Indian Rupees.
Revision dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 195
Jurisdiction and power to issue SCN u/s 61 of the JGST Act - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to explain the reason which has been sought in the second show-cause, within two weeks and the authority concerned will consider the same in accordance with law and depending upon the conclusion, follow-up action be taken in view of the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act.
-
2025 (1) TMI 194
Rejection of appeal on the ground of delay - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 9th May, 2024 rejecting the appeal is set aside. It is restored to file and number, for being expeditiously dealt with on merits by the appellate authority. Mr. Roy submits, his client will diligently prosecute the appeal to avail opportunity of hearing.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 193
Challenge to summary of order - absence of a detailed order under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act - lifting of attachment of bank accounts of petitioner - HELD THAT:- The impugned summary of order dated 13th August, 2019 is based upon ‘NO ORDER’ passed under Section 73 of 74 of the GST Act and therefore, such summary of the order is void and ab initio and is accordingly hereby to be quashed and set aside.
Petition allowed.
............
|
9911796707
