|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 11460 Records
-
2024 (5) TMI 246 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking revocation of cancelled petitioner’s GST registration - HELD THAT:- Considering the fair stand as taken by the respondents further adjudication of the petition is not called for. The impugned show cause notice as also the impugned orders cancelling the petitioner’s registration is quashed and set aside with liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice within two weeks from today. The show cause notice be adjudicated after following due procedure and after an opportunity to the petitioner of filing a reply and a personal hearing to be accorded to the petitioner. All contentions of the parties on the proposed proceedings are expressly kept open.
The petition stands disposed of.
-
2024 (5) TMI 245 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Grant of Regular Bail - bogus documents created in the form of e-way bills, though, no actual transaction had taken place - HELD THAT:- This Court finds no circumstances, more particular, when the co-accused is granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and such order has remained un-challenged, till date, to adjudge the impugned order as unjust and contrary to the settled principles of law. As held earlier, the petitioner has failed to point out supervening circumstances, which may interfere with the fair trial.
Reference made to the observations made in the recent decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of KEKHRIESATUO TEP ETC. VERSUS NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [2023 (4) TMI 1320 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that 'the learned Special Judge has himself distinguished cases of the persons who have indulged into extortion for furthering the activities of the organization and the persons like the present appellants, who were government servants, and compelled to contribute the amount. We, therefore, find that it cannot be said that the prima facie opinion, as expressed by the learned Special Judge, could be said to be perverse or impossible.'
The present petition fails and stands dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 244 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - cancellation of registration of the petitioner four times without assigning any reason - for the fifth time also, neither the SCN nor the order of cancellation of registration contained any reason whatsoever except the standard reason of misrepresentation and fraud committed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The impugned order of cancellation of registration dated 24.02.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2- Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Ghatak- 75 (Bhavnagar) for issuance of a fresh show- cause notice with detailed reasons for cancellation of registration of the petitioner and proceed with such show-cause notice in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 243 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Rejection of delayed appeal - rejection of the appeal having not been filed within the period of limitation - HELD THAT:- An appeal against an order under Section 73 or 74 has to be filed on or before 31.01.2024, and any appeal filed which is pending before the authority could also be considered as properly filed, even if there is delay in such filing - However, the maintainability of the appeal is further regulated by paragraph no. 3 of N/N. 53 of 2023- Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023 (S.O. 4767(E), which require that the admitted tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order is paid up along with a sum equal to 12.5% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees; out of which 12.5%, 20% should have been paid by debiting from the Electronic Cash Ledger. The further conditions in paragraph no. 4 to 6 also shall be applicable.
In the present case, the appeal was filed and was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority. In such circumstances, it is only proper that the appeal be restored to the files of the Authority subject to the conditions under paragraph no. 3 being satisfied - Hence the petitioner would be entitled to satisfy paragraph no. 3 of the aforesaid Notification by paying up the deficient amounts as would be required to maintain the appeal under the notification.
The impugned order is set aside on condition of the assessee satisfying the aforesaid conditions before the time stipulated in Notification; i.e. 31.01.2024, in which event, the appeal would be taken up and considered on merits. And if the conditions are not satisfied, then necessarily the impugned order would stand restored - petition allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 242 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Delay in filing the appeal - Time Limitation - petition delayed for almost one year - extension of period for filing a delayed appeal - HELD THAT:- This Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that when there is a specific period provided in the statute, within which period a delayed appeal could be filed; then neither the Appellate Authority nor this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could condone the delay beyond the period provided.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has by Notification No. 53 of 2023- Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023 (S.O. 4767(E)) extended the time for filing appeal against an order passed by the Proper Officer on or before 31.03.2023 under Sections 73 and 74 of the ‘BGST Act’. This in fact extends the period for filing a delayed appeal beyond the one month period as provided under Section 107(4) of the ‘BGST Act’, on following the special procedure prescribed under the said Notification.
Hence an appeal against an order under Section 73 or 74 has to be filed on or before 31.01.2024, and any appeal filed which is pending before the authority could also be considered as properly filed, even if there is delay in such filing - In the present case, the appeal was not filed. In such circumstances, it is only proper that an appeal be filed satisfying the conditions in paragraph no. 3 of N/N. 53 of 2023- Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023.
Hence the petitioner would be entitled to satisfy paragraph no. 3 of the aforesaid Notification by paying up the amount as would be required to maintain the appeal under the notification - Let an appeal against the impugned order dated 20.11.2021 be filed satisfying the aforesaid conditions before the time stipulated in Notification; i.e. 31.01.2024, in which event, the appeal would be taken up and considered on merits.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 241 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - time limitation to file appeal - Cancellation of GST registration of petition - HELD THAT:- An appeal was to be filed on or before 30.06.2022 as permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 18.10.2023, after about one year three months eighteen days from the date on which even the extended limitation period expired. In the above circumstances, there are no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies within the stipulated time. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent.
The petitioner does not have any case that the show-cause notice was not received by him. Further, it is also pertinent that the reason stated in the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration is that the petitioner has not filed returns for three consecutive tax periods. The petitioner does not have a case that he had in fact filed a return, in the three consecutive tax periods.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 240 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Challenge to SCN/assessment orders issued by the respondent-GST Department - levy of GST on royalty paid to the respondent-Mining Department towards mining lease - HELD THAT:- In SUDERSHAN LAL GUPTA CONTRACTOR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, STATE OF RAJASTHAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, CIRCLE KARAULI, RAJASTHAN [2022 (10) TMI 43 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of this Court has held that the action of respondents with regard to imposition of GST on royalty is not liable to be interfered with.
This writ petition is dismissed in terms of the orders passed by this Court in Sudershan Lal Gupta’s case - Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 239 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - petitioner has not been issued with any SCN - Violation of principles of natural justice - Predetermined action - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the aforesaid contents of the impugned order would clearly reflect that the reasons assigned for cancellation of registration is invoking clause No.29(2)(E) whereby it alleged that the registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. It also reveals that the cancellation was based preliminarily on e-mail received on 28.06.2023 from the office of the Director General of Goods and Service Tax (Intelligence), Hyderabad Zonal Unit. However, the contents of the e-mail dated 28.06.2023 from the Director General were never made available to the petitioner. The petitioner is not aware of the contents of the said e-mail.
It is apparently clear that for the reasons for which the registration stands cancelled by the impugned order dated 04.07.2023, the petitioner has not been put to notice or has been granted an opportunity to give an explanation to the same. For this reason alone, the impugned order is liable to be interdicted.
The impugned order is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund of GST for the period April, 2022 to March, 2023 - deficiency memo issued and date fixed for personal hearing - petitioner submits that deficiency memo has not been received - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court afresh in case need so arises.
Keeping in view the fact that the application for refund was submitted on 08.10.2023 for the subject period, respondents are directed to expedite the adjudication of the application and endeavour to disposed it of within four weeks from today.
-
2024 (5) TMI 237 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - penalty and fine has been imposed under Sections 130(1) and 130(2) of the Central/Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the fact that there is a remedy of appeal which is provided under Section 107 of the Act on a nominal payment of 10% of the amount imposed, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available.
Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in THE STATE OF PUNJAB VERSUS M/S SHIV ENTERPRISES & ORS. [2023 (1) TMI 842 - SUPREME COURT], it is opined that it is not for this Court to go into the disputed questions which are now sought to be raised as to whether the vehicle had stopped at Khanna to unload the goods or whether it was in transit as such.
The present writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (5) TMI 236 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appeal rejected as being not maintainable - rejection of refund claim - Rule 108 of the Haryana Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A co-ordinate Bench in GO DADDY INDIA DOMAINS AND HOSTING SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [2023 (4) TMI 1283 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] came to the conclusion that it is a highly technical ground for dismissing the appeal and set aside the said order and issued directions to hear the appeal on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
A perusal of the said judgment would also go on to show that the wording of the Rule had been taken into consideration since it is provided “electronically or otherwise” and, therefore, the manual filing as such has also been accepted.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 235 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TELANGANA
Availing and utilization of Input Tax Credit - supply of car was made in the month of July 2023 when the applicant was still availing the lower rate of tax on his supplies by forfeiting is right to claim input tax credit on purchase of goods and services - HELD THAT:- The applicant is paying tax at the rate of 6% CGST + 6% SGST after availing input tax credit under the same sub entry as provided by notification 31 of 2017 dated 13-10-2017 and 20 of 2017 dated 22/8/2017.
The applicant purchased a motor vehicle and the details of purchase were reported in GSTR-2B in the month of July 2023. The applicant avers that the original invoice was issued on 4/8/20123 that is in the month of August and therefore they would like to claim input tax credit on this invoice which was raised on them in the month of August 2023 that is during the month in which they have opted to pay higher rate of tax with ITC.
The applicant by opting to pay tax at a lower rate by not availing input tax credit on the goods and services used in his supplies has forfeited his right to avail input tax credit on the goods and services procured by him during the earlier period. The car purchased by him was reported by the supplier in his GSTR-01 in the month of July under section 37 of the CGST Act and the applicant was communicated this invoice in his GSTR-2B return - Therefore it is concluded that the supply of car was made in the month of July 2023 when the applicant was still availing the lower rate of tax on his supplies by forfeiting is right to claim input tax credit on purchase of goods and services and hence the ITC pertaining to the purchase of car is not available to the applicant.
-
2024 (5) TMI 183 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - Officer merely rejected the submissions of the petitioner without any reasoning - tax confirmed on the petitioner in terms of the proposals contained in DRC-01 issued to the petitioner, which preceded a notice in DRC-01A for the respective Assessment Years - HELD THAT:- The impugned orders set aside by giving the petitioner a fresh opportunity to substantiate the case afresh by filing a detailed reply to the respective notices issued to him in DRC-01.
The impugned order, which stands quashed shall be treated as Corrigendum to the notice issued to the petitioner for the respective Assessment Years under DRC-01. The petitioner shall file reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also pay 10% of the disputed tax for the respective Assessment Years. For the Assessment Year 2017-2018, while arriving at 10% of the disputed tax, the amount paid by the petitioner as tax for the Assessment Year 2017-2018, shall be excluded and on the balance amount, the petitioner shall pay 10% of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Failure to reply to SCN - alleged non reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of credit notes issued by the supplier - case of petitioner is that reply in Form ASMT 11 should have been taken into account - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that the notice in Form ASMT 10 is recorded therein. However, the reply of the petitioner thereto was not taken into account. Consequently, as is evident from paragraph 12 of the impugned order, the tax proposal was confirmed on the ground that the petitioner did not respond to the notices or attend personal hearing. Since the petitioner's reply to the notice in Form ASMT 10 was not taken into consideration in the impugned order, such order is unsustainable.
The impugned order dated 20.11.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 181 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice (audi alterem partem) - non-grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as per provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - rejection of refund without assigning any reason - HELD THAT:- It appears that impugned order of rejection of refund is passed without assigning any reason also. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 passed in Form-GST-RFD-06 under Rule 92(1), 92(3), 92(4), 92(5), 92(7), 92(5), 92(6) read with Sections 73 and 74 of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (‘GST Act’, for short) is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent No.2 for passing fresh order after de novo adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing and after assigning reasons for passing the order in accordance with law.
The present petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 180 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Levy of maximum penalty - penalty imposed on the basis of technical error - non downloading of E-way Bill-01 was not done with intention to evade tax - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the invoice contained the address, the goods matched the description in the invoice and all other materials were intact. The imposition of tax is only on the basis of a technical error. Furthermore, neither in the show cause notice nor in the order under Section 129(3) there was any allegation that non downloading of E-way Bill-01 was done with intention to evade tax. In spite of the same, the respondent authorities have chosen to impose maximum penalty whereas the law provides for lesser penalty under Section 122 of the Act.
The issue in the present petition is covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harley Foods Products Ltd. vs. State of U.P. [2018 (11) TMI 704 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], where it was held that 'Goods were accompanied with all the requisite documents including Gujarat e-way bill dated 21.03.2018, therefore, there was no ground to hold that the goods were coming in contravention of the provision of GST Act/Rule and the intention of the petitioner was to evade the payment of Tax' and thus no case made out with regard to evasion of tax.
The impugned order is set aside - petition allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 179 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of completed assessment - Difference in output tax liability between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns - the tax proposal in respect of the said discrepancy was confirmed by an earlier order and that the petitioner intends to challenge such order by separate proceedings - under declaration of ineligible ITC and invalid ITC under Section 16(4) - HELD THAT:- On examining earlier order and the impugned show cause notice, it is clear that they pertain to assessment period 2018-19. The first issue in the impugned show cause notice is the same issue determined under order dated 23.12.2023. Undoubtedly, it is not open to the respondent to reopen the same issue after issuing the earlier order.
Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice only insofar as it pertains to the issues of under declaration of ineligible ITC and invalid ITC under Section 16(4) - As regards the issue relating to reconciliation of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, the impugned show cause notice is set aside to that extent.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 178 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-service of SCN - petitioner unable to reply to the show cause notice or participate in proceedings because such notice and order were only uploaded on the “view additional notices and order” tab of the GST portal, and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode - HELD THAT:- The documents on record disclose that the petitioner replied to the notice in Form GST ASMT 10, but failed to respond to the intimation and show cause notice that followed. As is evident from the impugned order, tax liability was confirmed because the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice. It is also noticeable that the petitioner's reply to the notice in Form GST ASMT 10 was not taken into consideration. In these circumstances, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be provided an opportunity.
The impugned order dated 08.12.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 177 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Benefit of exemption from GST - educational institution or not - Rejection of refund of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in respect of the part of the Financial Year 2020-21 – April, 2020 to August, 2020 - tax paid under a mistaken understanding of the law - contradiction between Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST dated 17.06.2021 and N/N. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - scope of examination of services in terms of the 2017 Notification.
Scope of examination of services in terms of the 2017 Notification - whether the provision of any services is exempted (chargeable at Nil rate) from payment of GST? - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to any medical institution in India - Degrees of Diploma of National Board (DNB) and Fellow of National Board (FNB) after conducting the examination - Conducts Screening Tests - Accreditation of Medical Institutions.
NEET EXAMINATION - HELD THAT:- The question whether the petitioner is an educational institution for the purposes of Clause (aa) of Serial No. 66 of 2017 Notification was expressly clarified by introduction of Clause (iv) in Paragraph 3 of the 2017 Notification. The said explanation clarified that the Central and the State Educational Boards would be treated as educational institutions for the limited purposes of providing services by way of conduct of examination to the students. The opening words of Paragraph 3(iv) of the 2017 Notification are “for removal of doubts”. The said Explanation is clearly clarificatory.
The question whether educational boards are to be exempted from services provided in conduct of examination was considered by the GST Council at its 28th Meeting held on 21.07.2018. The Fitment Committee had noted that the definition of educational institutions as contained in Paragraph 2(y) of the 2017 Notification did not cover State Educational Boards, Central Government Boards and autonomous organizations responsible for administration of education in India - Most of the State Boards and Central Boards were either boards set up by the Act of Parliament or State Legislatures or registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Therefore, all examination boards except a few were Government entities. Any grant received by educational boards for providing services to government or any other person was also exempt.
Undisputedly, the question whether a provision is clarificatory or declaratory would not be dispositive of the question whether the same is applicable retrospectively. However, the fact that the language of the statute clearly reflects that it is for removal of doubts and to clarify doubts is a relevant indicator to determine whether the provision in fact intended to clarify and not intended to bring a prospective change. It is also relevant to determine whether the pre-amended law would admit such a clarification.
The service of holding an examination for aspirants to medical colleges, to provide a standard basis for entrance in medical institutions, the same would not fall within the ambit of Serial No. 66(a) of the 2017 Notification, as the same covers services provided by an educational institution to its students, faculty and staff. The candidates appearing for NEET examination are not students of the petitioner - More importantly, the Central Government has introduced a separate entry for exempting the services provided by an entrance examination – at Serial No. 66(a) of the 2017 Notification. Since, NEET examinations are in the nature of an entrance examination, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of an exemption by virtue of Serial No. 66(aa) of the 2017 Notification, which came into effect on 25.01.2018.
DEGREES OF DIPLOMATE OF NATIONAL BOARD (DNB) AND FELLOW OF NATIONAL BOARD (FNB) - HELD THAT:- Undeniably, the State Boards and educational boards are educational institutions. In the case of Secondary Board of Education, Orissa v. Income Tax Officer, Ward ‘E’, Cuttack [1972 (1) TMI 16 - ORISSA HIGH COURT], the Orissa High Court had observed that the Board of Secondary Education is not a university but it is indisputably an educational institution. ‘Education’ is included within the definition of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the said expression has been read in an expansive manner.
The course of DNB and FNB is a structured course. Although the students conduct their training with accredited medical institutions, the course is structured and managed by the petitioner. There is also no doubt that the students undergoing the said course are enrolled with the petitioner. Thus, although there is no classroom teaching by the petitioner; it is, undoubtedly, involved in imparting education to the students enrolled with it as a part of a curriculum. The course fee collected by the petitioner is forwarded to various accredited hospitals - for the purposes of DNB and FNB courses and conduct of Fellow Entrance Examinations, DNB-PDCET exam, FAT, DNB and FNB final examination (theory and practical) and the Fellowship Exit Exam, the petitioner clearly falls within the scope of an educational institution imparting education to students enrolled with, it as a part of a curriculum.
There can be no dispute that no GST is chargeable in respect of the services rendered by the petitioner in connection with DNB and FNB courses. The petitioner is indisputably involved in conduct of DNB and FNB courses and therefore, squarely falls within the definition of an educational institution in respect of the services rendered to its students in connection with and as a part the said courses.
SCREENING TEST AND ACCREDITATION OF MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS - HELD THAT:- The services provided by the petitioner for conducting screening test and the fees charged for accrediting medical institutions does not fall within the scope of Serial No. 66(a) and Serial No. 66(aa) of the 2017 Notification - The screening tests are not conducted as a part of the curriculum. The said tests are also not in the nature of entrance examinations but are for the purposes of recognising primary medical qualifications secured by candidates from institutions abroad. The accreditation fee is charged from medical institutions for accrediting them. These services are also not covered under the relevant entries of the 2017 Notification. The candidates appearing for the screening tests are not students of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner’s contention that it is exempt from payment of GST in respect of such services, is unmerited.
The orders rejecting the petitioner’s application for refund, which are impugned in this petition, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the appropriate authority for considering afresh - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice (audi alterem partem) - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the orders impugned herein, it is evident that the tax demand pertains entirely to the discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto populated GSTR 2A. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner is in a position to produce necessary documents in compliance with Circular No.183. In these circumstances, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, it is just and necessary to provide another opportunity to the petitioner.
The orders impugned herein are set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
........
|
