Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 84 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 921 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - transportation in one segment not being covered by a valid e-way bill - HELD THAT:- If the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P9 notice, then the respondents shall permit a clearance, and thereafter proceed to pass the final adjudication order under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (11) TMI 920 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - reason for detention is mis-match in the value of the goods transported, as shown in the e-way bill and job work invoice that accompanied the transportation of the goods - HELD THAT:- Inasmuch as the detention of the goods was during the return journey from the job-workers premises to the petitioner's premises, the documents that ought to have accompanied the transportation were the job work invoice, the delivery challan and the e-way bill. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the consignment was covered by the job-work invoice, an e-way bill as also the delivery challan that originally accompanied the goods on its transportation from Ernakulam to the job worker's premises in Salem. As per the statutory provisions, when goods are sent to other premises for job work, it is the same d....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 919 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Direction to respondents to issue necessary instructions, directions and orders to the jurisdictional officers to give effect to the rectified GSTR-3B returns filed manually by the petitioner for the months of July to September 2017 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. List the matter on 13th January, 2021.
- 2020 (11) TMI 918 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Reimbursement of differential tax amount arising out of change in tax regime from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Service Tax (GST) with effect from 01.07.2017 - grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the introduction of the GST, petitioner is required to pay tax which was not envisaged while entering into the agreement - HELD THAT:- The Government has now come out with a revised guidelines in this respect in supersession of the guidelines issued vide Finance Department letter dated 07.12.2017. Additional Counter Affidavit of O.P.-authority has been filed in similar cases annexing the revised guidelines relating to works contract under GST issued by the Government of Odisha, Finance Department vide Office memorandum No. FIN-CTI-TAX- 0045-2017/38535/F Dated 10.12.2018. Petitioner shall make a comprehensive representation before ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 917 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - Allegation of attempt to sale goods in between - detention on the ground that prima facie the 'documents tendered were found to be defective' - mismatch between the goods in movement and the documents tendered - remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the TGST Act - HELD THAT:- Without there being any order/decision passed by the 1st respondent and communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be expected to file appeal invoking Section 107 of the TGST Act, 2017 - the plea of the 1st respondent that the petitioner should avail the remedy of appeal under Sec. 107 of the TGST Act is rejected. Any defect, if any, in the documentation accompanying the goods for purpose of levy of tax and penalty has to be looked at also in terms of the Circular dt. 13.4.2018 and Circular dt. 14.09.2018 issu....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 916 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods - solver ornaments - unaccounted stocks - Section 67 of the Central Goods and Service Act, 2017 - Whether the 1st respondent is authorised to pass the impugned proceedings dated 04.02.2020? - HELD THAT:- The argument of the petitioners that the 1st respondent is not legally authorised to issue the impugned proceedings is not correct in view of the Gazette notification No.37 of Revenue Department (CT-II) dated 30.06.2017 filed by the learned Government Pleader. Section 68(3) of the CGST Act confers power on “the Proper Officer” to intercept any conveyance on the way and require the person in-charge of the said conveyance to produce the documents prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 68 and the devices for verification in which case the said person shall be liable to produce the same and also allow th....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 879 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - expired E-Way bill - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, however, that there is an issue regarding the legality of inclusion of the cess component in the quantification of the amount liable to be paid under Section 129 of the GST Act, the respondents are directed to release the goods and vehicle on the petitioner furnishing a Bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P10 order. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (11) TMI 878 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Decision to be made on petitioner's representation - HELD THAT:- This Court directs the Central Board of Indirect Taxes (CBIC) to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 30th June, 2020 along with the additional representation to be made within two weeks, within eight weeks from the date of filing of the additional representation. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Petition disposed off.
- 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 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.