|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 467 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 127
Challenge to actions and orders passed by the respondent authorities concerning the freezing of their bank account and subsequent adjudication proceedings - undue hardship and a violation of procedural fairness - HELD THAT:- Upon a thorough examination of the documents presented to the Court and taking into account the arguments put forth by the parties, this Court allows the writ petition as statutory provisions on limitation should be interpreted liberally in cases where genuine hardships are demonstrated, particularly in light of judicial precedents supporting such relief.
In S.K. CHAKRABORTY & SONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] the Hon’ble Division Bench held that 'since provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1963 have not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the Act of 2017 by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Act of 1963, Section 5 of the Act of 1963 stands attracted. The prescribed period of 30 days from the date of communication of the adjudication order and the discretionary period of 30 days thereafter, aggregating to 60 days is not final and that, in given facts and circumstances of a case, the period for filling the appeal can be extended by the Appellate Authority'.
In light of the procedural irregularities and the arbitrary nature of the actions, this court finds the petitioner’s case to be meritorious - Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the appellate order is quashed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 126
Issuance of a Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 without a proper Show Cause Notice - requirements under Section 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 satisfied or not - infraction to the various provisions of the Central Act, the State Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder - principles of natural justice have been violated as is not only a statutory mandate but also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution - lack of signatures on the attachments - whether the said attachment can be said to be a Show Cause Notice as per the mandate of both the Central Act as well as the State Act and the Rules made therein under?
HELD THAT:- From a perusal of the Rule 142 of the Rules of 2017, it would show that in addition to the Show Cause Notice to be issued under Section 73 (1) and the Statement of determination of tax under Section 73 (3), there is an additional requirement of issuance of a Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and the Summary of the Statement in GST DRC-02. The natural corollary from the above analysis is that the issuance of the Show Cause Notice and the Statement of determination of tax by the Proper Officer are mandatory requirement in addition to the Summary of Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and Summary of the Statement in GST DRC-02.
This Court is of the view that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing the determination of tax cannot be said to be a valid initiation of proceedings under Section 73 without issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. The Summary of the Show Cause Notice is in addition to the issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order challenged in the instant writ petition is contrary to the provisions of Section 73 as well as Rule 142 (1) (a) of the Rules as the said impugned Orders were passed with issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice.
Whether Rule 26 (3) can be applicable to Chapter-XVIII when the said Sub-Rule on refers to Chapter-III? - HELD THAT:- This Court has duly perused the Summary of the Show Cause Notices wherein the petitioner was only asked to file his reply on a date specified. There was no mention as to the date of hearing and the Column was kept blank. However, the petitioner had sought for an opportunity of hearing which was however not given. In this regard, if this Court takes note of Section 75 (4) of both the Central Act as well as State Act, it would be seen that it is the mandate of the said provision that an opportunity of hearing should be granted when a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty or when any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The mandate of Section 75 (4) of both the Central and State Act are safeguards provided to the assessees so that they can have a say in the hearing process.
This Court is of the view that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is not a substitute to the Show Cause Notice to be issued in terms with Section 73 (1) of the Central Act as well as the State Act. Irrespective of issuance of the Summary of the Show Cause Notice, the Proper Officer has to issue a Show Cause Notice to put the provision of Section 73 into motion. The Show Cause Notice to be issued in terms with Section 73 (1) of the Central Act or State Act cannot be confused with the Statement of the determination of tax to be issued in terms with Section 73 (3) of the Central Act or the State Act. In the instant writ petitions, the attachment to the Summary of Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is only the Statement of the determination of tax in terms with Section 73 (3).
The issuance of the Summary of the Show Cause Notice, Summary of the Statement and Summary of the Order do not dispense with the requirement of issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and Statement as well as passing of the Order as per the mandate of Section 73 by the Proper Officer. As initiation of a proceedings under Section 73 and passing of an order under the same provision have consequences. The Show Cause Notice, Statement as well as the Order are all required to be authenticated in the manner stipulated in Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the Impugned Order challenged in the writ petition are in violation of Section 75 (4) as no opportunity of hearing was given.
Conclusion - A proper Show Cause Notice is mandatory under Section 73, and digital signatures are required for authentication under Rule 26(3).
The impugned order dated 30.04.2024 issued by the respondent no.3 is hereby set aside and quashed - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 125
Denial of opportunity to defend itself due to the alleged failure of service of a show cause notice under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Remedy of appeal having been denied on the ground of delay that was for want of knowledge - HELD THAT:- Division bench of this Court in the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others [2024 (7) TMI 1543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has dealt with this aspect of the matter and it has been held that no material existed to reject the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that order impugned imposing liability of tax was not reflecting under tab 'view notices and orders' and so there remained a valid dispute as to non consideration/consideration of the various documents of returns available which could have been shown in reply to the show cause notice.
The division bench was of the view that party under liability of tax in an ex parte order needs at-least an opportunity to put up his defense by submitting papers which may have led assessing officer to uphold the claim for exemption from tax liability. The division bench accordingly, instead of keeping the matter pending disposed off the same with a direction that impugned order may be taken as notice to enable the petitioner to submit his reply and thereafter assessing officer may have to pass a fresh order.
The view taken by the division benches as cited before the Court are absolutely correct on the principle that nobody should be condemned unheard and legislature while incorporating the provision of notice/ show cause notice, intended so.
Conclusion - Nobody should be condemned unheard and legislature while incorporating the provision of notice/ show cause notice, intended so. Effective communication of notices is essential for ensuring a fair hearing and that procedural lapses should not deprive parties of their right to appeal.
It is directed that the order passed by the assessing officer dated 07.02.2024 shall be taken to be notice within the meaning of Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 to enable the petitioner to file his objections and place its documents before assessing officer/competent authority for its consideration - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 124
Challenge to final order referable to Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 CGST Act - non-compliance with personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Fact noted is that pursuant to the original Show Cause Notice which had come to be issued, the petitioner had furnished a detailed response. However, the same has been perfunctorily brushed aside and the observations produced.
An identical challenge formed the subject matter of XEROX INDIA LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, WARD 208 (ZONE -11) DGST AND ANR [2024 (12) TMI 1283 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Dealing with an identically worded order framed by the said GST Officer, it is obserfed that 'The Assistant Commissioner has clearly adopted a template where the only reason assigned is that the reply filed was “not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous”. This clearly exhibits an abject non-application of mind and the officer repeatedly employing identical phraseology to deal with such matters.'
The impugned order dated 31 August 2024 cannot be sustained - petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 123
Challenge to Summary of the Show Cause Notice - attachment to the determination of tax - attachments to both the GST DRC-01 as well as the GST DRC-07 did not contain any signature of the Proper Officer - opportunity of hearing as provided under Section 75 (4) of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 not provided before passing of the order - violation of principles of natural justice - whether the said attachment can be said to be a Show Cause Notice as per the mandate of both the Central Act as well as the State Act and the Rules made therein under?
HELD THAT:- It would be apposite to take note of that in all these cases, the Summary of the Show Cause Notices have been issued in terms with Section 73 - Taking into account that it is only in the circumstances referred to above, the Proper Officer is required to issue a Show Cause Notice, therefore, the Show Cause Notice is required to specifically mention the reason(s) and the circumstances why the provision of Section 73 had been set into motion. The person against whom the said Show Cause Notice is issued would only have an adequate opportunity to submit a representation justifying that the prerequisites for issuance of Show Cause Notice is not there if and only if the reason(s) for issuance of the Show Cause is specifically mentioned in the Show Cause Notice.
This Court is of the view that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing the determination of tax cannot be said to be a valid initiation of proceedings under Section 73 without issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. The Summary of the Show Cause Notice is in addition to the issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order challenged in the instant writ petition is contrary to the provisions of Section 73 as well as Rule 142 (1) (a) of the Rules as the said impugned Orders were passed with issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice.
Whether the determination of tax as well as the order attached to the Summary to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and the Summary of the Order in GST DRC-07 can be said to be the Show Cause Notice and order respectively, this Court duly dealt with what would constitute a Show Cause Notice, the Statement as per Section 73 (3) as well as the Summary to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and Summary of the Statement in GST DRC-02. This Court had also opined above that the statement to be provided by the Proper Officer in terms with Section 73 (3) cannot be said to be a Show Cause Notice which is required to be issued in terms with Section 73 (1). Therefore, the submission of the respondents that the statement attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice is the Show Cause Notice is completely misconceived and contrary to Section 73 (1) and 73 (3).
Whether Rule 26 (3) can be applicable to Chapter-XVIII when the said Sub-Rule on refers to Chapter-III? - HELD THAT:- In the case of M/S. SILVER OAK VILLAS LLP VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, STATE OF TELANGANA, UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS [2024 (4) TMI 367 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], the learned Division Bench of the Telangana High Court had applied Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017 even to Chapter-XVIII of the Rules of 2017. In the case of AV BHANOJI ROW VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST VISAKHAPATNAM [2023 (2) TMI 1224 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], the learned Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the signatures cannot be dispensed with and Sections 160 and 169 cannot save an order, notice, communication which did not contain a signature. In another judgment of the learned Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of RAILSYS ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (APPEALS-II) & ANR. [2022 (7) TMI 1230 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Delhi High Court held that there was a requirement of at least putting the digital signatures on the Show Cause Notice and Order in Original.
This Court has duly perused the Summary of the Show Cause Notices wherein the petitioner was only asked to file his reply on a date specified. There was no mention as to the date of hearing and the Column was kept blank. However, the petitioner had sought for an opportunity of hearing which was however not given. In this regard, if this Court takes note of Section 75 (4) of both the Central Act as well as State Act, it would be seen that it is the mandate of the said provision that an opportunity of hearing should be granted when a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty or when any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The mandate of Section 75 (4) of both the Central and State Act are safeguards provided to the assessees so that they can have a say in the hearing process.
This Court is of the opinion that when the statute is clear to provide an opportunity of hearing, there is a requirement of providing such opportunity. In fact a perusal of the Form GST DRC-01 enclosed to the writ petition shows that details have been given as regards the date by which the reply has to be submitted; date of personal hearing; time of personal hearing and venue of personal hearing. It is seen that in the Summary of the Show Cause Notice only the date for submission of reply has been mentioned - in a case where no reply is filed, a question arises whether the Proper Officer can pass an adverse order without providing an opportunity for hearing. The answer has to be in the negative else it would render the second part of Section 75 (4) redundant.
Conclusion - This Court is of the view that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is not a substitute to the Show Cause Notice to be issued in terms with Section 73 (1) of the Central Act as well as the State Act. Irrespective of issuance of the Summary of the Show Cause Notice, the Proper Officer has to issue a Show Cause Notice to put the provision of Section 73 into motion. The Show Cause Notice to be issued in terms with Section 73 (1) of the Central Act or State Act cannot be confused with the Statement of the determination of tax to be issued in terms with Section 73 (3) of the Central Act or the State Act. In the instant writ petitions, the attachment to the Summary of Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is only the Statement of the determination of tax in terms with Section 73 (3). The said Statement of determination of tax cannot substitute the requirement for issuance of the Show Cause Notice by the Proper Officer in terms with Section 73 (1) of the Central or the State Act. Under such circumstances, initiation of the proceedings under Section 73 against the petitioners in the instant batch of writ petitions without the Show Cause Notice is bad in law and interfered with - The issuance of the Summary of the Show Cause Notice, Summary of the Statement and Summary of the Order do not dispense with the requirement of issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and Statement as well as passing of the Order as per the mandate of Section 73 by the Proper Officer. As initiation of a proceedings under Section 73 and passing of an order under the same provision have consequences. The Show Cause Notice, Statement as well as the Order are all required to be authenticated in the manner stipulated in Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the Impugned Order challenged in the writ petition are in violation of Section 75 (4) as no opportunity of hearing was given.
The impugned order dated 27.04.2024 issued by the respondent no.3 is hereby set aside and quashed. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that it is on account of certain technicalities and the manner in which the impugned order was passed, this Court interfered with the impugned order and hence set aside and quashed the same - this Court while setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 27.04.2024, grants liberty to the respondent authorities to initiate de novo proceedings under Section 73, if deemed fit for the relevant financial year in question - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 122
Challenge to action initiated by the official respondents - procedure under Section 64(2) of the KGST Act has been undertaken without section 67 (1) of the KGST Act having been complied - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that the indulgence as requested by the petitioner is not required to be granted since vide communication dated 12.11.2024 the petitioner has merely been afforded an opportunity of hearing after the official respondents have set out the discrepancies as noticed by them. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to respond to the discrepancies as notified in the communication dated 12.11.2024. While responding to the same, it is open to the petitioner to take all contentions permissible under law including the contentions with regard to Section 67 (1) of the KGST Act that has been urged in the present writ petition.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 121
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 - 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.P1 order, the writ petition will stand disposed of, setting aside Ext.P1 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.
-
2025 (1) TMI 120
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 119
Cancellation of registration granted to the petitioners under the provisions of the CGST / SGST Acts - rejection on the ground that it was belatedly filed - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice issued to the petitioner in this case is produced as Ext.P1. A perusal of Ext.P1 shows that the same has been issued in Form GST Reg 31, which is the form for issuing a notice regarding suspension of registration.
A perusal of the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.29807 of 2022 [2022 (12) TMI 1370 - KERALA HIGH COURT] will indicate that it was a case where a show cause notice has been issued alleging that there was failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months.
Conclusion - The cancellation orders quashed, allowing the petitioners to restore their registrations subject to conditions imposed.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 118
Challenge to SCN for not paying GST under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)/Telangana State Goods and Services Tax (TSGST) Act, 2017, despite having paid GST under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner has already deposited the tax under the IGST Act, it is deemed proper to direct the petitioner to prefer appeal(s) within three weeks from today before the competent appellate authority. If such appeal(s) is/are filed within aforesaid time, despite not depositing 10% of the tax demanded, as per the statutory requirement, the competent appellate authority shall consider and decide such appeal(s) on merits expeditiously.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 117
Negative blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger - interpretation of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Though the counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the letter dated 19.08.2024 issued to the respondents by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamshedpur, to justify their action, when such action is not permitted by the Rules framed under the Act, it would be prima facie wholly without jurisdiction. Therefore, the order at Annexure 5 is kept in abeyance until further orders.
Also having regard to Rule 6(2)(b) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Rules, 2017, further proceedings before the respondents shall stand stayed.
List this case on 11.12.2024.
-
2025 (1) TMI 116
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - non-filing of returns - order would seem to indicate that no tax liability stands foisted upon the petitioner nor are there any outstanding payments due - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is disposed off by according liberty to the writ petitioner to apply for revocation of the order of cancellation and furnish all Returns for the periods in respect of which there was non-compliance. In case such an application is moved within a period of three weeks from today, the competent authority may examine the prayer for revocation and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
-
2025 (1) TMI 115
Challenge to order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants as it was time-barred - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the fact that the appellants are in possession of certain customs documents and that their contention is that no tax is payable since it was an import transaction on which customs duty has been remitted and also taking into consideration that the appellants have pre-deposited a sum of Rs.1,48,895/- at the time of preferring the appeal, being 10% of the disputed tax and also taking note of the fact that the tax period is from July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 i.e. when the GST regime was introduced, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the appellants.
It is made clear that this order has been passed without going into the merits of the matter and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the relevant tax period.
The order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the appellate authority and adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the Act dated 17th April, 2023 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration - Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 114
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- The order directing the appellant to approach the appellate authority does not call for interference. However, we are of the view that instead of directing payment of cost to the respondent of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the appellant shall deposit the said amount before the adjudicating authority and the said deposit shall be treated as the requisite pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal by the appellate authority.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 113
Cancellation of GST registration - impugned order came to be passed without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it appears that now the petitioner is willing to file an appeal against the impugned assessment order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent and today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his relief and requested this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned assessment order since it will be sufficient to meet out the case of the petitioner.
Though this petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.12.2023, considering the submissions made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned assessment order.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 112
Constitutional validity of provisions of section 16(4) of CGST Act/ SGST Act, 2017 - violative of Article 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitutional of India or not - time limit for taking input tax credit - HELD 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 VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX; THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BENGALURU; UNION OF INDIA; STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BANGALORE [2024 (9) TMI 1648 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'The parties are relegated to the stage of show cause notice at Annexure-C dated 13.02.2020 issued by the respondent(s) and the respondents are directed to give effect to and implement the amended provisions contained in Section 118 of “The Finance (No.2) Act, 2024” relating to insertion of Section 16(5) to the CGST Act / KGST Act by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity and hear the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
Conclusion - The introduction of Section 16(5) extends the timeline for availing input tax credit, providing relief to assessees and impacting pending legal challenges to previous provisions.
The impugned Order at Annexure-D dated 28.02.2023 and Summary at Annexure-E dated 28.02.2023 are hereby quashed - petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 111
Denial of input tax credit has been denied to the petitioner on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts - HELD THAT:- The writ petition will stand disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to consider the directions issued by this Court in the judgment in M. Trade Links [2024 (6) TMI 288 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and to extend the benefit of the directions issued in that case to the petitioner, if the factual situation of the petitioner is similar. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for input tax credit, which has been denied to the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained in Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Acts is concerned, it is directed that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in terms of the Circulars referred to in Paragraph No.101 of M. Trade Links.
To enable the consideration of the matter, Ext.P1 order will stand set aside to the extent it denies credit on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts.
The writ petition ordered.
-
2025 (1) TMI 110
Seeking initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondent for the wilful disobedience of the order 2024 (9) TMI 756 - DELHI HIGH COURT - respondent was directed to consider the cancellation of the GST registration at the earliest - HELD THAT:- It appears that as such no specific timeline was prescribed in the aforesaid order. However, the respondent submits that some inquiries are going on into the alleged bogus firms and the appropriate decision would be taken within a month from today.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 109
Applicability of principle of mutuality - challenge to SCN issued u/s 73(1) and 74(1) of the CGST / SGST Acts - HELD THAT:- Since only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, it is premature for the petitioner to challenge the same by approaching this Court by filing a writ petition. If the petitioner has a case that services to its members are not liable to GST, it is for the petitioner to establish the same before the authorities. Any contention of the petitioner on the basis of the findings of this Court in INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, KERALA STATE BRANCH, VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, STATE OF KERALA, GST COUNCIL, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE, KOCHI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE, KOZHIKODE. [2024 (7) TMI 1448 - KERALA HIGH COURT] can also be considered by the competent authority, in accordance with the law.
This writ petition will stand disposed of directing the respondent to consider the claim, if any, of the petitioner after adverting to any reply that may be filed by the petitioner and affording to them an opportunity of hearing and in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
-
2025 (1) TMI 108
Violation of principles of natural justice - Non-service of SCN - petitioner was unaware of the impugned order - delay in filing appeal - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it appears that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order, due to which, there was a delay in filing the appeal and the reason provided for non-filing of appeal within the prescribed time appears to be genuine. Therefore, being satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner and also considering the submission made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to condone the delay.
The impugned order dated 25.07.2024 is set aside and the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal before the 1st respondent is hereby condoned.
Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
