Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 102 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 (2) TMI 1378 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Validity of Summon Order - it was repeatedly asked to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether summons are issued in accordance with law? - He states that there is power to issue summons but the partner of the petitioner be exempted from personal appearance. HELD THAT:- No good reason is made out to interfere in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1317 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Vires of Rule 117 of CGST Rules - time limittaion - filing to form TRANS-1 - HELD THAT:- In view of the clear finding that in the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the attempt made by the petitioner to log into the system within the time limit concerned, it is ordered that the impugned Rejection Order as per Ext.P8 etc, will stand quashed - Consequently it is ordered that the competent Authority among official respondents 1 and 3 to 6 shall take steps to immediately permit the petitioner to revise their TRAN - 1 Forms either electronically or manually without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment or within such time limit that may be appropriately fixed by the competent Authority among the above said respondents as they deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case or within any shorter time limit. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1311 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Anti Profiteering - Constitutional Validity of provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Issue notice confined to the prayer. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and learned counsel for respondent No. 4 accept notice. They pray for and are permitted to file counter affidavit within four weeks. The petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the principal profiteered amount. The said amount shall be deposited in two equal monthly instalments. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be kept in interest bearing Fixed Deposit Receipts by the Registry. List on 21st April, 2020.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1300 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Detention order - goods alongwith vehicle - SCN duly served under section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, upon the driver of the vehicle on the same date, i.e. 11th September, 2019 - HELD THAT:- In the said show cause notice, the date fixed for filing of the reply was 18th September, 2019. In spite of a specific date fixed for filing of reply, no reply was forthcoming from the petitioner. As such, an order under section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was passed determining the amount of tax and penalty for release of the goods and vehicle. This order was passed on 29th September, 2019. In the said order a total amount of ₹ 28,53,563.64p (Rupees twenty eight lakhs fifty three thousand five hundred and sixty three and paise sixty four only) was demanded as amount of tax and ....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1299 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods - Section 130 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - It is the case of the writ-applicant that the goods and the conveyance came to be detained and seized by the GST Authorities on the premise that the goods were being transported in contravention of the Act and Rules - HELD THAT:- As the matter is at the stage of GST-MOV-10, we would not like to enter into the merits of the matter. The first concern for the writ-applicant should be to get the goods released - Since the matter is at the stage of GST-MOV-10, the application preferred by the writ-applicant [Annexure-I, Page No.44 of the paper-book] shall be treated as one in terms of Section 67(6) of the Act. This writ-application with a direction to the State Tax Officer, Morbi Squad, Enforcement, Division-9, Bhavnagar to immediately look into the a....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1298 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods or conveyance - levy of penalty under Section 130 of the GST Act - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This is a case in which the final order in Form GST-MOV-11 has been passed. In such circumstances, we relegate the writ-applicant to prefer an appeal, against such order, under Section 107 of the Act - Application disposed off.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1297 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of regular bail - bogus firms - intent to evade GST - fake invoices issued for input tax credit (ITC) - bogus transaction of sale of yarn - allegation is that Petitioners make bogus firms and by transacting with bigger firms, they are getting huge amounts of money deposited in the account numbers of the said fake bogus firms so as to save GST and are thus causing huge loss to the State Exchequer on account of loss of revenue - HELD THAT:- Rajesh Mittal has played an pivotal role in the entire scam for the purpose of incorporating 18 different firms wherein in a majority of the firms, his e-mail ID or phone number had been used. During the course of investigation, the police has been able to collect evidence to the effect that bank transactions of withdrawal of ₹ 1,21,17,230/- was made in the account of M/s Ansh Hospitality bet....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1296 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Mode of Petitioner’s application for advance ruling - Mr. Bansal further submits that the issue with regard to filing of the online application for advance ruling has been resolved qua OIDAR services and it is possible for anyone to move the application online. Mr. Bansal submits that functionality of advance ruling is now available on GST portal wherein the normal tax payer after choosing both CGST and SGST Acts can pay the specified fee under the respective heads and similarly an OIDAR tax payer registered under IGST Act will pay the specified fee of ₹ 5,000/- under IGST as fee for application for advance ruling. HELD THAT:- List on 16.03.2020.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1295 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Claim of exemption - milk chilling and packing services - support services to agriculture - In the circular CBIC says the activity is not eligible for exemption - whether exempt by virtue of serial No.24 of the table to Notification No.11/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017? - refund of amount recovered and collected from the petitioners through their contractors as GST on milk chilling and packing services. It is the case of the petitioners that the Central Government has granted exemption to milk chilling, storage and packing service by virtue of serial No.24 of Notification No.11/2017 dated 28.6.2017, but this exemption is now denied to the petitioners by virtue of the Circular F. No.354/292/2018- TRU dated 9.8.2018 issued by the TRU. HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that milk is an agricultural produce, it being a produce out of....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1242 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Refund of GST paid under RCM on ocean freight - Constitutional validity of Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST(Rate) dated 28.6.2017 - vires of Section 5(3) of the IGST Act as well as Article 14 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- This Court vide judgement and order passed in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India [2020 (1) TMI 974 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] declared the Entry No.10 of the Notification No.10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as ultra vires Section 5(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as well as Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since the Notification has been struck down as ultra vires, as a consequence of the same, the writ applicant seeks refund of the amount paid towards the IGST. However, for this purpose, the writ applicant will have to prefer an appropriate application addressed to the competent authority. Application disposed off.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1241 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - Central GST authority or State GST authority - Validity of investigation initiated by the respondents and the summons issued in connection with the said investigation - primary challenge to the investigation and the summons issued was a specific bar under the GST Act, 2017 - Input Tax Credit on the GST paid on the goods and service purchased - primary contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that once when a show cause notice proceeding initiated by the respondents dated 14.11.2019 is pending before the concerned authorities under the CGSGST, the respondents could not have issued or initiated another investigation or proceeding in-respect of the same subject matter, which otherwise is not permissible under the provisions of Section 6(2)(1)(b). HELD THAT:- This Court does not find any substance in the arguments of th....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1240 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules - time limitation - carry forward of CENVAT credit - migration to GST regime - HELD THAT:- This Court has not declared the said Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 neither this Court has ordered the respondents to carry forward CENVAT credit beyond the time limit, but in the case on hand, the respondents herein had tried to upload form GST TRAN-1, but it could not be filed on account of technical glitches in terms of poor network connectivity and other technical difficulties at common portal. Under the circumstances, this Court has gone into the question that in such circumstances what would be the remedy if a person who tries to follow Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 but, without there being any fault on his side he could not upload the form due to technical glitches. This Court has fol....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1239 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Permission to re-export the seized goods - demand of furnishing Bank Guarantee of 25% - Petitioner submitted that there is no provision for levy of IGST either on the imported goods or the exported goods under the provision of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He therefore submitted that the insistence on the part of the respondent no.3 to furnish the bank guarantee of 25% on the amount of IGST is without any basis - HELD THAT:- As this Court has directed the respondent no.2 to permit the petitioner to re-export the goods on furnishing the 25% of the customs duty leviable on redetermined value of goods, then the respondent no.2 is not entitled to ask for bank guarantee on the amount of IGST on redetermined value of goods. The impugned communication dated 07th September, 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is declared ....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1238 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - order passed beyond jurisdiction in terms of Section 39, 46, 47 and 50 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - notice in form GSTR-3A not issued - liability of interest under Section 50 of the Act - HELD THAT:- It is found that the order to be not assigning any reasons whatsoever - Also, prior to passing of the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the writ-petitioner. As such, there was gross violation of principles of natural justice in passing of the impugned order, which is hereby quashed with the certain directions - Petitioner shall appear before the appropriate authority on 28.01.2020, whereafter the proceedings shall commence afresh, affording opportunity of proper hearing to the petitioner, also enabe to place on record additional material, if so required/desired and only thereafter the officer shall pass a fresh order assigning reason, in accordance with law.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1187 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Release of goods alongwith the vehicle - Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act - an Appeal under Section 107 (1) of the Act was filed - HELD THAT:- When, however, the Appellate Court instead of adjudicating as to whether the amount was payable under Section 129 (1) (a) or under Section 129 (1) (b) adjudicated on different aspects as well on 28.1.2020, the petitioner has filed the instant petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under Section 168 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, a certain Government Order had also been issued on 1.7.2017 (annexed as annexure no. 6 to the writ petition) which states that when the invoice is there it would be deemed that the person from whose possession the invoice is found would the owner and when the invoice came from the petitioner, it sh....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1186 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods alongwith vehicle - levy of penalty - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- While issuing notice, this Court directed that the vehicle as well as the goods be released, upon payment of the tax, in terms of the impugned notice - The writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim-order passed by this Court and got the vehicle, along with the goods released on payment of the tax amount. The proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The proceedings shall go ahead in accordance with law. It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of SYNERGY FERTICHEM PVT. LTD VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2019 (12) TMI 1213 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - Application disposed off.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1185 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Effect of order of Moratorium declared under IBC - proceeding pending before the GST authorities under the GST Act 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner takes a view that by the order dated 26.08.2019, the National Company Law Tribunal has declared a moratorium under Section 14 (Section 13) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the corporate debtor in respect of execution of any judgment and decree or order of any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority. Accordingly, in the order of the Commissioner a question was raised whether issuance of show cause notice by the GST authorities would mean to be an execution of an order or it be treated as decree against the petitioner. By raising such question, the objection that the further proceeding is not maintainable because of the order of moratorium of the Nation....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1184 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reduction in the rate of GST - Situation pre and post GST implementation - It is pointed out by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have acted unreasonably, inasmuch, as, for the period prior to reduction of GST from 12% to nil w.e.f. 27.07.2018, the DGAP had computed the base price on average basis. However, for the period after the GST rate became nil w.e.f. 27.07.2018, the base price has been worked out item by item. HELD THAT:- Our attention has been drawn to the tabulation filed by the petitioner before the DGAP, which shows that in respect of several items sold by the petitioner, after the reduction of GST to nil, the price actually fell, however, while computing the profiteered amount; such cases have been excluded from consideration - Prima facie, it appears to us that the impugned order needs consideration and the petitioner has been able to make out a strong case for grant of interim relief. List on 24.09.2020.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1159 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods alongwith vehicle - Section 129 and 130 of the GST Acts - it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants that the integrated goods and services tax has already been paid on the goods in question at the time of import thereof - HELD THAT:- While passing the said order, this Court, by way of interim relief, directed the respondents to release the vehicle as well as the goods forthwith - The writ applicants availed the benefit of the interim order passed by this Court and got the vehicle, along with the goods released. The proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The proceedings shall go ahead in accordance with law. It shall be open for the writ applicants to point out the recent pronouncement of this Court....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1158 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Demand of GST, penalty and confiscation of goods - detention of vehicles / trailers - Purchase and movement of Cranes from another state - default related to E-way Bill - Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 - allegation of violation of Section 129 (3) and (6) for the consequential initiation of confiscation proceedings after expiry of fourteen days - HELD THAT:- The controversy involved in the present case assailing the impugned notices cannot be adjudicated at this stage of the matter, particularly when the petitioner has already submitted reply. The aforementioned reply is not a routine reply but backed by relevant provisions and circulars as mentioned above, which is required to be considered dispassionately and in a pragmatic manner - on the merits of the matter, it is not ....... + More