|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 15446 Records
-
2025 (4) TMI 1642
Issuance of SCN and demand against a deceased person - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the Section 93 would reveal that the same only deals with the liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in a case where the business is continued after the death, by the legal representative or where the business is discontinued, however, the provision does not deal with the fact as to whether the determination at all can take place against a deceased person and the said provision cannot and does not authorise the determination to be made against a dead person and recovery thereof from the legal representative.
Once the provision deals with the liability of a legal representative on account of death of the proprietor of the firm, it is sine qua non that the legal representative is issued a show cause notice and after seeking response from the legal representative, the determination should take place.
The determination made in the present case wherein the show cause notice was issued and the determination was made against the dead person without issuing notice to the legal representative, cannot be sustained - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1641
Challenge to repeated issuance of SCN by the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Department and impugned order - challenge on the ground that despite a specific reply having been placed on record that the Petitioner was suffering from a stroke, the Department proceeded and passed the impugned order - HELD THAT:- Considering the overall facts, there is no doubt that the Petitioner has been continuously following up with the Department and filing replies diligently. The medical ground which was stated on 23nd December, 2024 ought to have been considered emphathetically as the same was accompanied with all the documents from Indraprastha Apollo Hospital.
The impugned order dated 8th January, 2025 is set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1640
Challenge to validity of N/Ns. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31th March 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December 2023 - SCN was not in the knowledge of the Petitioner, hence no reply was filed - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned and the appeal deserves to be heard on merits.
The Appeal is restored to its original number before the Appellate Authority - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1639
Challenge to order in original - the written submissions filed by the Petitioner have not been considered by the Respondent No. 1 and no personal hearing notice has been issued either - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner having had no the opportunity to file its reply to the Department and no personal hearing having been effectively afforded to the Petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Department for fresh consideration, only insofar as the Petitioner is concerned.
The Department shall make an endeavour to ensure that in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, assessees are served through the common GST portal as also through their personal email and mobile number. In addition, the notice may also be sent through speed post so that situations as have arisen in this case, can be avoided in the future.
Let the final SOP be placed on record by the next date of hearing - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1638
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29 (2) (c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the reason that the petitioner did not submit returns for a period of 6 (six) months and more; and the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, this Court is of the considered view that in the event the petitioner approaches the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, has the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form.
This writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of his GST registration.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1637
Dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on ground of it being time barred - failure to furnish returns for six months - HELD THAT:- The impugned order for cancellation of registration with effect from 28.02.2022 under Section 29 (2) (c) of the CGST Act, 2017 was issued on 08.07.2022 and the Petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which is the appellate provision on 29.09.2023 through online and hard copy of the same was submitted in the office of the appellate authority on 06.10.2023; as such, after calculating the entire period, it appears that the appeal has been filed after one year and three months beyond the normal period of filing of appeal as prescribed under Section 107 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
On plain reading of Section 107 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow an appeal to be presented beyond the period of one month for filing of appeal. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to one month after the expiry of three months which is the normal period for preferring appeal.
The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days' period.
The Petitioner-Firm is not entitled for any relief on the ground of delay and latches coupled with the fact of being lethargic in approach; inasmuch as, on the one hand, the petitioner did not file return regularly and thus has not complied with GST REG-17/31 issued to him in any manner; and on the other hand, the appellant filed appeal after delay of more than one year and three months which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation as per the Act.
Conclusion - Neither there is any perversity in the order of cancellation of GST registration; nor there is any necessity for interference with the appellate order, inasmuch as, the same has been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.
Application dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1636
Challenge to SCN and N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs - extension of time limits for adjudication under the GST regime - Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the said SCNs and concurrent impugned orders have been passed without hearing the Petitioner, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits.
Conclusion - The Petitioner is granted 30 days’ time to file the reply to SCNs. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing.
The impugned order set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1635
Issuance of ex-parte assessment order and demand notice under Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 against a corporate debtor undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) - HELD THAT:- This Court in M/S NS Papers Limited and another Vs. Union of India through Secretary and others] [2024 (12) TMI 989 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], after dealing with a catena of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and also other High Courts held as 'the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is without any merit on two counts. Firstly, it is clear by the letter dated March 8, 2021 that the petitioner had informed the Income Tax Authorities with regard to approval of resolution plan. Secondly, the department itself had filed a claim before the Resolution Professional, and accordingly, the argument that the department was not aware of the IBC proceedings holds no water.'
Conclusion - The principle is crystal clear that once Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, all other creditors are barred from raising their claims subsequently, as the same would disrupt the entire resolution process.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1634
Seeking directions to the Respondents to supply the Relied Upon Documents (RUD) in the Show Cause Notice - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering the nature of request, the Department should have supplied a complete set of RUDs to the Petitioners to enable them to file proper reply to the SCN dated 18th March 2025 - Accordingly, it is directed that all the above RUDs in full be provided to the Petitioners within one week.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1633
Service of SCN - SCN did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner as the same was uploaded by the Respondent No. 1-Department on the ‘additional notices tab’ - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the Petitioner did not get an opportunity to file a reply to the SCN, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to be afforded an opportunity to file a reply. Let the reply to the SCN be now filed within a period of 30 days.
The Adjudicating Authority shall proceed and pass order with respect to the SCN after affording a hearing to the Petitioner.
The demand order is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1589
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Challenge to assessment order - impugned assessment order has been passed based on mismatches in ITR 26(AS), Input Tax Credit (ITC) in GSTR-2A, and ITC reversal on account of credit notes received - HELD THAT:- Recording the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal, Tiruchirappalli, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and raise all the grounds raised in this writ petition in the appeal.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1588
Maintainability of petition - bypassing the statutory appellate remedy and invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the petitioner has failed to point out any extraordinary and exceptional circumstance for bypassing the statutory alternative remedy. Neither there has been a failure of principles of natural justice nor it is the case of the petitioner that proceedings were without jurisdiction, which are the grounds under which the bar of statutory remedy does not come in the way of entertaining the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
There are no reason to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction in the present case. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1587
Challenging an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal concerning the general transfer process in the State GST Department - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the matter in the light of the earlier interim order as well as taking note of the Government Policy (Annexure-A1) for implementing online general transfer. No doubt, the object behind Annexure-A1 is laudable but it's implementation may take time. The Tribunal or the Court cannot force the Government to implement such guidelines within a particular time frame.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1586
Challenge to ex-parte order - no reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided - order was not communicated to the Petitioner and therefore the challenge to the same before this Court could not be made within the reasonable time - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Section 146 of OGST Act, 2017 postulates that the Government on the recommendations of the Council may notify the Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal to facilitate the registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, computation and the settlement of the integrated tax and to carry out such other functions as may be prescribed. Thus, the creation of common portal as envisaged under Section 146 of the said Act, is to facilitate not only uploading of the returns or registration, but also the payment of tax including the adjudication made by the competent authority and uploading of the order which would be passed. The aforesaid notion can further be corroborated by Section 169 of said Act providing the mode of communication of any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under said Act. The language used in the section leaves no ambiguity in our mind that the modes contemplated therein for communication of the decision/order or the notice can be resorted to by the authorities.
The Apex Court as well as several High Courts have imposed self-restraint upon themselves in exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, if the approach is made belatedly and bereft of any reasonable explanation. The delay and laches attributable to the conduct of the litigant may disentitle him to get the relief and the Court may at times refuse to exercise such discretion vested upon them - The moment the order is uploaded in the common portal and the returns are statutorily required to be uploaded on such portal on periodical intervals, it is inconceivable that there was lack of knowledge of said order to the Petitioner. The order was passed as far back as in the year 2023 and the challenges made to the same in the instant writ petition, filed in the year 2025, is without any explanation except that said order was not within the knowledge of the Petitioner.
There is apparent delay in approaching this Court and therefore, it is refused to exercise the discretion vested upon us under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ application is rejected.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1585
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned orders passed by the first respondent, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, it is seen that all the communications/notice, which culminated in the impugned orders were uploaded in the GST Portal, that too, not under the usual column, 'Notices and Orders', but under the different column, i.e. ''Additional Notices and Orders'' column, which not only the petitioner but also the petitioner's Accountant was aware - it is crystal clear that the first respondent passed the impugned orders without even affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which are nothing but ex parte orders, as the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner has an effective and efficacious remedy of filing Appeals before the Appellate Authority, however, before the petitioner could do so, since recovery notice was issued and entire disputed tax has been recovered from the petitioner's bank account, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking for setting aside the impugned orders.
Once the orders passed in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court cannot impose any condition requiring the petitioner to make any deposit - the matters are remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1584
Validity of summary order in Form GST DRC-07 - Seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal, error of law and error on the face of record - denial of opportunity of being heard - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned summary order dated 20.12.2023 was passed calling upon the petitioner to file objections on or before 28.12.2023 while the impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the Act on 30.12.2023, which is not a consequential order or speaking order to the summary of the order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 07.12.2023. When such being the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order came to be passed without considering the objections which have to be made by the petitioner and that it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits and in accordance with law.
The order impugned herein is set aside on condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the impugned assessment period, as agreed by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1583
Principles of natural justice - assessment order passed by the respondent without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, it is evident that though the reply has been filed by the petitioner, without taking into consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, the assessment order has been passed, which is totally against the provision under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
This Court is of the view that the assessment order came to be passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to establish their case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and that it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits and in accordance with law - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1582
Seeking grant of privilege of anticipatory bail - criminal breach of trust and forgery related to misappropriation of funds - HELD THAT:- Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the above named petitioners is rejected.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1581
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Cancellation of petitioner’s registration for failing to furnish the returns - complaince with due procedure contemplated under Section 29 of the CGST Act or not - HELD THAT:- Though petitioner alleges that Exhibit-P2 order of cancellation is ambiguous, on a perusal of the same, it is noticed that the respondent has complied with due procedure contemplated under Section 29 of the CGST Act. A reading of the order of cancellation as well as the show cause notice reveals that petitioner had not furnished the final return for the period prescribed under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act. Despite the show cause notice issued to the petitioner as Exhibit-P1, he failed to respond at all. Even the opportunity for hearing granted to him was not availed. Therefore, petitioner cannot now turn around and allege that there was any procedural violation.
The statute provides for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act. The said provision was also not invoked by the petitioner. The appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act has also not been invoked by the petitioner. For more than 13 months, petitioner failed to initiate any steps to challenge the order of cancellation of registration. Petitioner can thus be deemed to have acquiesced into the order cancelling his registration. Thereafter, he cannot turnaround and challenge the order of cancellation of registration. Petitioner is thus estopped from challenging the impugned order.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1579
Voluntary cancellation of GST registration - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Since none of the material which is placed on record and which is alluded to, was ever placed before the respondents, the ends of justice would merit the petitioner being accorded an opportunity to place the same before the competent authority and for the same being examined afresh.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
........
|
9911796707
