|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 11460 Records
-
2024 (5) TMI 175 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Breach of principles of natural justice - Petition was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned assessment order on account of the fact that GST compliances had been entrusted to a consultant, who had not informed the petitioner of such proceeding - discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR-3B and auto-populated GSTR-2A - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such order relates to the discrepancy between the GSTR 3B and GSTR – 2A returns. The petitioner has placed on record several documents to establish that the petitioner was entitled to avail of ITC. Since the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was issued, principles of natural justice warrant interference so as to provide an opportunity to the petitioner. It should be noticed that the petitioner remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand, before filing this writ petition.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.03.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is also permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 174 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Levy of GST on the value of the by-products i.e., broken rice, bran and husk - HELD THAT:- When the matter is listed, both the learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes would admit that the subject matter of this Writ Petition iin SHIRIDI SAINATH INDUSTRIES VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SERVICES TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) [2021 (1) TMI 175 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], where it was held that 'the impugned Assessment Order passed by the 1st respondent in so far as it relates to the levy of GST on the value of by-products i.e., broken rice, bran and husk treating them as part of the consideration paid to the petitioner for milling of the paddy, is set aside'.
This Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Assessment Order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the 1st respondent in so far its relates to levy of GST on the value of the by-products i.e., broken rice, bran and husk treating them as part of the consideration paid to the petitioner for milling of the paddy is set aside.
-
2024 (5) TMI 173 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - non-speaking assessment order - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - reversal of ITC - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax liability of the petitioner under about '7' heads was determined therein. As regards turnover mismatch, the assessing officer set out the particulars provided by the petitioner, recorded that the petitioner had produced the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year 2017-2018 and thereafter recorded the following conclusion: “The reply of the dealer is not acceptable”. Thus, the assessing officer has merely recorded a conclusion in the nature of ipse dixit without any reasoning to support such conclusion.
Reversal of ITC - HELD THAT:- The assessing officer has recorded the conclusion that ITC was used partly for effecting taxable supplies and partly for effecting exempt supplies. The latter conclusion appears to be clearly contrary to the submissions made by the assessee. As regards tax liability under the head 'sundry creditors', the petitioner/assessee stated that the payments to creditors are below 180 days and Rule 37 was not contravened. It was further stated that no ITC was involved. The reply of the assessee dated 09.10.2023 clearly discloses that the sundry creditors' list, payment date, bank date and bank statement were enclosed. Without considering these documents, a finding that bank statement was not provided is recorded in the impugned order.
It appears that the impugned order was issued without taking into account the relevant material placed on record by the assessee. Consequently, the said order calls for interference and is hereby quashed.
The matter is remanded for reconsideration by the assessing officer. After providing a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the assessee, the assessing officer is directed to issue a fresh assessment order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 172 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Levy of GST on royalty paid to the respondent-Mining Department towards mining lease - challenge to SCN/assessment orders - 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.
-
2024 (5) TMI 171 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed at the admission stage on the ground that it was barred by limitation and beyond the condonable statutory period - sufficient cause for delay or not - cancellation of GST registration - HELD THAT:- Though the impugned order in view of Section 107 of APGST Act does not suffer from any illegality, as the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond statutory condonable period but considering that there was sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time, the interest of justice requires condonation of the delay. The appeal is a valuable statutory right.
In exercise of writ jurisdiction to do complete justice and provide opportunity of hearing on merits of the appeal, the delay is condoned by imposing costs of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously. The Costs shall be deposited in two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the appellate authority.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 119 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of interest and penalty - transition of amount wrongly claimed as input tax credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner was not entitled to avail input tax credit on the Basic Customs Duty paid under the Customs Act, 1962, under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Under Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017, only input tax credit lying un-utilised under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and TNVAT Act, 2006 in Tamil Nadu could be transitioned - Sub- Section (2) to Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 also makes it clear that the registered person shall not be allowed to take credit unless the said credit was admissible as CENVAT credit under the existing law i.e., CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and is also admissible as input tax credit under the CGST Act, 2017 - Therefore, the question of the petitioner transitioning the amount that was wrongly claimed as input tax credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 did not arise. The Department however committed a mistake by sanctioning the refund to the petitioner on 17.07.2018 pursuant to refund claim filed by the petitioner.
There has to be restitution of the unjust benefit gained by a dealer/person. These provisions have been framed to ensure that there is proper restitution. Thus, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is sustainable and this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 118 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal barred by time limitation - Violation of principles of natural justice - order for cancellation of registration passed without any application of mind - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts are similar to one in SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. COMMERCIAL TAX (GST) LKO. AND 2 OTHERS [2023 (8) TMI 1262 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case took into consideration the original order and set aside the same being non-reasoned and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice.
The orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 117 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - Non-service of notice - demand u/s 73 (1) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Sections 142, 173 and 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the penalty of the same amount under Section 78 of the Act - HELD THAT:- Without going into any further details of the dispute, this court is of the opinion that the court's endeavour should be to decide the dispute on merits after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties and opportunity of hearing should not be denied on hyper-technical reasons. As the petitioner is willing to cooperate in the proceedings, it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter for being decided afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The impugned order dated 08.01.2024, passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Lucknow imposing tax liability and penalty on the petitioner is quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 116 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking enlargement on bail - evasion of GST - supply of clandestine goods without issuance of invoices - during investigation the statements of two employees were recorded in which the allegations against the applicant were found established - HELD THAT:- On perusal of record, the evidence on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Applicant is allowed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 115 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal barred by time limitation - Violation of principles of natural justice - order for cancellation of registration passed without any application of mind - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts are similar to one in SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. COMMERCIAL TAX (GST) LKO. AND 2 OTHERS [2023 (8) TMI 1262 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case took into consideration the original order and set aside the same being non-reasoned and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice.
The orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 114 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty @200% - e-way bill which was generated by the appellant had expired and at the time when the vehicle was intercepted four days had lapsed - intent to evade to tax or not - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is found that the order of adjudicating authority does not deal with the specific submission made by the appellant in the reply dated 13.09.2022 to the show cause notice. In other words, no reasons have been set out to record satisfaction of the authority that it is a fit case for imposition of penalty. Further, the adjudicating authority did not reject the stand taken by the appellant in their reply dated 13.09.2022.
In the absence of any allegation that there is an intention to evade payment of taxes and in the absence of any adverse inference drawn pursuant to the physical verification except that e-way bill had expired, the court if of the view that some lenience can be shown to the appellant. However, the conduct of the appellant in not extending the e-way bill for four days after its expiry cannot be absolutely condoned.
A transporter/owner of the goods is bound to carry certain documents as mentioned in the Act which are to accompany the goods. In the instant case, prior to the movement of the goods e-way bill was generated in which the tax invoice number was duly incorporated proof of payment of tax has also been established and e-way bill was valid till 05.09.2022 and mistake committed by the appellant is not extending the e-way bill after the expiry despite such liberty being granted under the Rules. The appellate authority in fact has accepted the contention of the appellant that the penalty amount has been computed on a higher value than the invoice value without proper evidence and reason.
Cnsidering the totality of the circumstances and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court is inclined to grant some indulgence to the appellant but will not completely exonerate the appellant - Considering the peculiarity of the facts, the appellant is liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- - appeal allowed in part.
-
2024 (5) TMI 113 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Eligibility for Input Tax Credit - failure to report outward supply - discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B - items not notified for being taxed on reverse charge basis - HELD THAT:- The respondent proceeded on the basis that it was an outward supply of goods. Such conclusion indicates non application of mind.
The petitioner submitted an explanation that the discrepancy was rectified while filing subsequent returns or that the discrepancy occurred on account of lower payments being made. On examining the impugned order on this aspect, it is noticeable that the respondents were not fully satisfied with the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner. The failure of the petitioner to provide all relevant documents certainly contributed to the state of affairs. With regard to the findings on these issues, it is appropriate to put the petitioner on terms as a condition for reconsideration.
The impugned order is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand, on the assumption that tax is leviable at 12% thereon. Such remittance shall be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to receipt thereof, the 1st respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of remittance from the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 112 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - non-application of mind - claim of ITC - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 24.10.2023 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply with supporting documents. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is not supported with complete relevant documents, which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details or documents were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication - petition disposed off by way remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 111 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking cancellation of the GST registration on the ground of closure of business - Rejection of application for cancellation - order does not give any particulars or details - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is no cogent reason on behalf of the Respondents as to why the applications seeking cancellation of the GST registration are being denied. If a trader seeks to shut the business and surrender its GST registration, there is no ground under which the department can refuse such an application except in cases where the interest of the revenue is at stake.
In the instant case, no such ground has been taken by the department. Furthermore, mere cancelation of the registration does not preclude the department from taking any action in accordance with law for recovery of any tax, penalty or fine that may be due and even from retrospectively cancelling the registration is circumstances so warrant - It may be noticed, that on an application being filed for cancellation of the registration, the registration is automatically suspended and no business can thereafter be carried out under the said registration.
In view of the fact that the Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue with the registration, the registration of Petitioner shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 30.05.2023 i.e., the date when Petitioner first filed an application seeking cancellation of GST registration.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 52 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax proposal on merits - error made while reporting outward supplies and Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the month of November 2017 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed on the ground that the petitioner failed to file written objections to the show cause notice or attend personal hearing. Since the petitioner asserts that the inadvertent error was rectified both in Form GSTR 9 and in the GSTR 3B return from March 2020, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided another opportunity to contest the tax proposal by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order dated 27.07.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed of by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Scope of SCN - impugned order proceeds on a completely different basis from the SCN - Entitlement to ITC - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the intimation and show cause notice, it is evident that the petitioner was called upon to show cause with regard to a sum of Rs. 8,27,252/-, which was arrived at on the assumption that there was sales suppression. By contrast, the impugned order imposes tax liability of Rs. 14,97,072/- and an equal amount by way of penalty. It is also clear that the impugned order does not proceed on the basis of sales suppression. If the respondent intended to modify the tax proposal in light of the petitioner's reply, a fresh show cause notice should have been issued. It is also noticeable that the petitioner's electronic credit ledger was debited to the extent of Rs. 7,52,047/-. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
The impugned order dated 23.06.2023 is set aside by leaving it open to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 50 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 23.10.2023 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply with supporting documents. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents, unable to clarify the issue which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order dated 30.12.2023 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The show cause notice is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 49 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Determination of time limit for filing of Appeal before the Appellate Authority - Delay due to the online system's failure to upload the Order-in-Original with the appeal. - Rejection of refund claim on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- In terms of Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, in computing the period of limitation for an appeal, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, is to be excluded. Further, in terms of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, in computing the period of limitation, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, is also to be excluded.
Accordingly, even if it is assumed that the order was uploaded/communicated on the day it was signed i.e. 12.08.2022, said date of 12.08.2022 is to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Accordingly, the period of three months is to commence from 13.08.2022. Thus petitioner was liable to file the appeal by 12.11.2022. It is an admitted position that the appeal was filed alongwith a copy of the order, through the online mode on 12.11.2022, i.e. within the period of three months.
The appeal was within time and the impugned order erroneously rejects the appeal on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 is set aside. The appeal is restored on the records of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is now directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rectification application - tax proposals confirmed on two discrepancies - rectification application of the petitioner was not uploaded on the portal - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order and the rectification application, it appears that the confirmed tax proposals pertain to discrepancies between the petitioner's turnover as per the financial statement and the auto populated GSTR 2A as also discrepancies between the petitioner's annual return in Form GSTR 9 and the monthly returns in Form GSTR 3B. From the enclosures to the rectification application, it appears that the petitioner has enclosed relevant documents to endeavor to reconcile the differences. In these circumstances, it is just and appropriate to direct that such application be considered expeditiously.
Petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to consider and dispose of rectification application dated 26.02.2024 within two months from the date of receipt a copy of this order.
-
2024 (5) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Parallel proceedings under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 - Challenge to impugned Assessment order - petitioner has not participated in the proceedings - HELD THAT:- Having considered the fact that the petitioner failed to respond to the notices issued in DRC-01 dated 28.09.2023, which is culminated in the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 and having considered the fact that the respondent has recovered the substantiate portion of the tax, which was confirmed vide the impugned orders dated 20.12.2024 for a sum of Rs. 7,62,834/-, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondents to pass fresh orders on merits in accordance with law.
The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be corrigendum to the impugned order issued to the petitioner in DRC-01 dated 28.09.2023 - Petition allowed.
........
|
