|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 3954 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (11) TMI 834 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - goods were not accompanied by the relevant E-way bills - Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the appellate order shows that the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal in the absence of the counsel for the appellant. There is no reasons not to believe the version of the counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the counsel for the appellant could not appear on account of his suffering from high fever and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the appellant - Petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2020 (11) TMI 833 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - allegation of fraudulent availment of input tax credit - passing of forged GST - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioner, his length of custody, the pendency of investigation, the offence being compoundable and the severity of punishment under Section 132 of the CGST Act; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Subhash Chandra Tyagi S/o Late Shri Chiranji Lal shall be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of ₹ 50,00....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 832 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of petitioner's Bank Account - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Respondent No.1 states that if directions are issued by the Court for time-bound disposal of the above representation, it will be abided by promptly. It is directed that the aforementioned representation of the Petitioner be decided by a reasoned order not later than 4th December, 2020 and the decision thereon be communicated to the Petitioner not later than 8th December, 2020. The submissions of the Petitioner in the present petition and any additional submissions the Petitioner wishes to make in writing within the next two days, shall also be taken into account while passing such order. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (11) TMI 831 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods alongwith vehicle - expired E-way bill - HELD THAT:- It is clear from Rule 138(10) that the specific period for which an e-way bill is valid is evident from the table under that rule. Serial Nos.1 and 2 deals with cargo other than Over Dimensional Cargo [hereinafter 'ODC'] and serial Nos.3 and 4 with ODC. ODC is cargo having dimensions in excess of the vehicle in which it is carried. The contention of the appellant is that the amendment by which an insertion was made in 2019 takes in multimodal shipment in which at least one leg involves transport by ship and whether it be an ODC or goods other than ODC. Enabling proviso under Rule 138(10) - HELD THAT:- We perfectly agree with the submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader that this would only enable the consignee to update the e-way bill extendi....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 830 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - input tax credit - fake firms - Offence under Section 132(1)(f) of the C.G.S.T. Act - HELD THAT:- It is directed that accused petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
- 2020 (11) TMI 829 - PATIALA HOUSE COURT
Grant of Bail - allegation of availment of inadmissible input tax credit - bail is sought on the ground that arrest of the accused was arbitrary and illegal as there is no adjudication of any tax liability outstanding or contravening of GST Act - HELD THAT:- The grant of bail requires striking a delicate balance between two conflicting interests, namely, on one hand. the liberty of an individual and on the other hand, the investigative rights of the prosecuting agency for the interest of the society. Although personal liberty and freedom of a person cannot be undermined, but at the same time, the legitimate rights of the investigative agency has to be taken due consideration of. The liberty of the individual is not absolute and same can be withdrawn if it is found to be creating an impediment in the rights of the prosecuting agency, The b....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 828 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Revocation of cancellation of GST registration - non filing of returns for a continuous period of six months - non submission of reply to the show cause notice dated 20.12.2019 within the time specified therein - HELD THAT:- During the personal hearing appellant has stated that their CSTIN has been restored. The adjudicating authority has also submitted their report that the present status of GSTIN is active. Further, the appellant has also withdrawn their appeal vide mail dated 15.10.2020. Since, the jurisdictional authority has restored the said registration and the appellant has also withdrawn their appeal, Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn - appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2020 (11) TMI 789 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of Petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - challenge on order under Section 130 of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Mirzapur Range, Mirzapur - respondents states that the writ petition is not maintainable as the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the Act, 2017. HELD THAT:- Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of statutory remedy of appeal.
- 2020 (11) TMI 788 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit - Section 54 (3) (b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the present petition by directing the Respondents to process the Petitioner’s application for refund and pass appropriate orders thereon not later than 31st January, 2021 and communicate the decision to the Petitioner not later than 8th February, 2021. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, it will be open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
- 2020 (11) TMI 787 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - foundational SCN was never communicated to the petitioner who is an individual registered under GST Act - Rule 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- As per Rule 142 of CGST Act, the only mode prescribed for communicating the show-cause notice/order is by way of uploading the same on website of the revenue. The State in its reply has provided no material to show that show-cause notice/order No.10 dated 10.06.2020 was uploaded on website of revenue. In fact, learned AAG, Shri Mody, fairly concedes that the show-cause notice/order was communicated to petitioner by Email and was not uploaded on website of the revenue - It is trite principle of law that when a particular procedure is prescribed to perform a particular act then all other procedures/modes except the one prescribed are exclu....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 786 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Principle of natural justice - Failure to uploand the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and Order on the GSTN portal - Rule 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is trite principle of law that when a particular procedure is prescribed to perform a particular act then all other procedures/modes except the one prescribed are excluded. This principle becomes all the more stringent when statutarily prescribed as is the case herein. This Court has no manner of doubt that statutory procedure prescribed for communicating show-cause notice/order under Rule 142(1) of CGST Act having not been followed by the revenue, the impugned demand dated 18.09.2020 vide Annexure P/1 and P/2 pertaining to financial year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 and tax period September, 2018 to March, 2019 and April, 2019 to May, 2019 respectively, deserves to be and is struck down. Petition allowed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 785 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT
Refund of GST - Refund was rejected on the ground that there is no provision under GST Act and GST Rules for refund of excess payment of tax, if such payment is made through ITC - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Authority cannot be faulted for undertaking an enquiry even after observing that the order of the Adjudicating Authority was erroneous because the Appellate Authority has to decide whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of refund. The Adjudicating Authority had only scrutinized the cash ledger in GST portal for the relevant period of refund. In the reply to the SCN, the petitioner had stated that the GST liability for the month of August, 2017 had been discharged by debiting from ITC credit ledger to the extent of its availability and the balance liability was paid from cash ledger for the month and that since there is no ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 784 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Refund of IGST - Goods exported out of India during the period July 2017 to September, 2017 - It is the claim of the petitioner that in addition to the on-line process, the petitioner had also filed manual applications, however, the Department did not entertain the claims for refund and the amount sought for as refund was not given to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the petitioner did not prefer any application seeking payment of interest @6% on the principal amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that the question of interest has been pursued upon only in the writ petition. Accordingly, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties since the principal amount has been already been received by the petitioner on the date mentioned above, the writ petition is closed permitting the petitioner ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 783 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund of Input Tax Credit - exports of goods outside India - zero rated supplies - Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The admitted position is that the Circular No.14/2018-Customs dated 04th June, 2018 is neither clarificatory nor it determines the eligibility of allowing refund of Input Tax Credit on exports. In any event, the new procedure cannot be made applicable from a retrospective date. The impugned orders dated 01st June, 2020 passed by respondent no.3 as well as the orders dated 11th March, 2019 and 22nd July, 2019 issued by respondent no.2 are set aside - the matter is remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner, who in turn is directed to decide the same in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2020 (11) TMI 782 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - purchase of flat - allegation that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of the input tax credit by way of commensurate reduction in price to the Applicant - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Applicant No. 1 & 2 have stated that they had booked their flats with the builder on 31.10.2013 and as per the builder buyer agreement, the flats were to be delivered by 31.10.2015. The Respondent raised the final invoices on 19.01.2020 after receipt of the Completion Certificate from NOIDA in January 2017 but one year after receiving the Completion Certificate and by that time GST had been implemented thus resulting in extra financial burden to them which was ₹ 3,00,000/- approx. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that as per the provisi....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 751 - SC ORDER
Validity of Summon Order - High Court refused to entertain the request that there is power to issue summons but the partner of the petitioner be exempted from personal appearance - HELD THAT:- The SLP need not be interfered with. - However, it will be open to the petitioner to request the concerned authority to defer the recording of statement of the petitioner until the lockdown period is over. SLP dismissed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 750 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Carry forward of transitional credit - vires of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - no evidence of error of submission/filing of TRAN-1 by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned special counsel for the respondent no.1 states on instruction of the Commissioner, Income Tax, Lucknow dated 19.11.2020 that time was extended under Rules 117 (1A) of UPGST Rules, firstly by order dated 17.09.2018, upto 31.01.2019, thereafter by order dated 31.01.2019, upto 31.03.2019 and lastly by order dated 07.02.2020, upto 31.03.2020. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has ever attempted to file TRAN-1 during the extended period. There are no good reason to entertain the writ petition - writ petition is dismissed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 749 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of Natural Justice - Grievance of the petitioner is that while raising the demand of tax vide summary of order dated 18.09.2020 vide Annexure P/2, the foundational show-cause notice/order No.12 dated 10.06.2020 qua financial year 2018-2019 and tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019, was never communicated to the petitioner who is an individual registered under GST Act - Rule 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that the only mode prescribed for communicating the show-cause notice/order is by way of uploading the same on website of the revenue. The State in its reply has provided no material to show that show-cause notice/order No.12 dated 10.06.2020 was uploaded on website of revenue. In fact, learned AAG, Shri Mody, fairly concedes that the ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 748 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - no prior opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner - Rejection of Refund application of IGST - HELD THAT:- Since refund in similar facts and circumstances has been allowed for the period December, 2017 to March, 2018, this Court sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter to the respondent No.3 for fresh consideration/determination in accordance with law within six weeks. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2020 (11) TMI 747 - DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT ROHTAK
Grant of Bail - creation of bogus firms in the name of various persons - vicarious liability - case of applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in this matter and has also been illegally arrested - HELD THAT:- It is a case where the allegation against the present applicant/accused is that he, being the mastermind behind establishing and registering bogus firms in the name of various persons, was also involved in the issuance of invoices without the actual movement of the goods. In this manner, such transactions were carried out to earn commission out of them. The investigation so far points out that such transactions have caused loss to the tune of ₹ 13.08 Crores to the Government Exchequer. The contention of the applicant that there is nothing on record to show that he had received or obtained any kind of benefit from the a....... + More
........
|
