Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 81 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 (8) TMI 824 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Short transition of input tax credit - transition to GST regime - HELD THAT:- The issue has been decided by various High Courts as well as by the Apex Court, this court deems it proper to direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation annexing all the judgments cited before this court within a period of seven days before the Jurisdictional Commissioner from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order - Reliance can be placed in the case of Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2019 (11) TMI 282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ]. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (8) TMI 775 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Interest on ITC set off - petition has filed the returns for the financial year 2017-18, 20018-19 and 2019-20 at belated stage and availed Input Tax Credit at the time of filing GSTR-3B returns, as Works Contractor - HELD THAT:- This Court disposes of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Superintendent, Central GST and Central Excise, Berhampur - opposite party No.3 to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on 06.05.2020 under Annexure:3 keeping in view the decision taken in the 39th meeting of GST Council, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The decision taken, if any, be communicated to the petitioner.
- 2020 (8) TMI 774 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Interest on delayed payment of GST - HELD THAT:- Although various contentions are raised in this writ petition in its challenge against the notice, the petitioner should be relegated to the alternate remedy of filing his objections to Ext.P3 notice, and getting the same adjudicated before the adjudicating authority, before approaching this Court in a challenge against any decision taken by the respondent. At this stage of the proceedings where all that is issued to the petitioner is a notice, and he has an opportunity to file objections to the same, I do not deem it necessary to admit this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (8) TMI 735 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of consignment - detention on the ground that the documents did not reflect the transaction covered by the transportation that was apprehended - Section 130 of GST Act - HELD THAT:- The 1st respondent are directed to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount mentioned in Ext.P7 notice. The respondents shall, thereafter, transmit the files to the adjudicating authority for an adjudication of the issue under Section 130 of the GST Act. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (8) TMI 734 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Levy of GST - Works Contract - composite tax paid - tender rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not disclosed tax burden - petitioner argued that the petitioner has not disclosed tax burden since the petitioner has paid Composition levy under Section 10 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- The petitioner produced Ext.P9 statement for payment of self-assessed tax. Ext.P9 would show that the payment of self-assessed tax for the quarter January-March 2019-'20, has been filed. But, it was filed only on 16.07.2020, which is much after filing of the writ petition. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was composite dealer as on the date of filing of the tender application. As the petitioner left the columns relating to tax element blank, respondents 1 and 2 could not assess the actual cost of the work in his bid. As the t....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 733 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Recovery of GST - non filing of returns - notices pertained to period August 2018, October 2018 and December 2018 - Section 62 (1) of GST Act - HELD THAT:- Apparently, the returns filed within time as evidenced from screenshots Ext.P7 - For the reasons best known 4th respondent issued recovery notices Ext.P8 which are without adherence to sub Section 62(2) of the GST Act. The question of raising demand could not arise qua the returns in respect of the period referred to was not exigible to tax. On a plain reading of Section 62 (2), extracted in paragraph 18 of the writ petition which I need not reproduce it again, it is not in doubt that whenever an assessee fails to file a return an assessing officer is required to sent the assessment order in terms of provisions Section 62 (1) of the Act but, there is a caveat in terms of provision unde....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 732 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Claim of transitional credit - submission of form TRAN-1 - mistake while submitting the aforementioned form TRANS-1 was that, instead of filing it under the Central GST, it was filed under the State GST. Petitioner was not aware of such indication - HELD THAT:- While exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would not be in the domain of this court to decide as to whether it is a normal credit or was an intentional or bonafide error. Since petitioner has already sought rectification vide request, Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.12930 of 2020 and Ext.P3 in other items, I am of the view that the 4th respondent has already received such request on consideration of the matter, in case it requires the petitioner or representative, take a call and thereafter, as per the circular and the procedure invoked, w....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 631 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Constitutionality and Legality of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 126 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Since the legality and validity of the aforesaid Section and Rules have been challenged in a batch of connected matters, which have been tagged with the present writ petition, present application is allowed and the amended writ petition is taken on record. List on 3rd November, 2020 along-with W.P. (C) 10999/2018 and other connected matters for final hearing.
- 2020 (8) TMI 630 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of consignment - Lubricant - stock transfer - consignee was shown as an unregistered person in the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation of the goods - allegation also that the petitioner had collected CGST and SGST in the delivery challan that was used for stock transfer of the goods - HELD THAT:- The petitioner would submit that although the e- way bill showed the consignee as an unregistered person, the invoice that accompanied the transportation clearly referred to the GSTIN of the consignee and hence, the mere mention of the consignee as an unregistered person in the e- way bill cannot be of any significance - Further, petitioner states that the mention of the tax applicable in the delivery challan was by mistake for it is evident that when the goods are stock transferred and not sold, there need not be a payment o....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 629 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Freezing of petitioner's bank account - the petitioner started depositing the money (as ordered) with the respondent to clear the GST liability, however because of this ongoing pandemic situation the petitioner suffered financial losses as also the petitioner is not receiving its due money from its customers as the pandemic has adversely effected the business of his clients too - HELD THAT:- Though, the learned Standing Counsel for CGST Department/ respondent objected to the extension of the time but considering the pandemic situation the period of the clearing the entire liability is extended to further 120 days from today and the petitioner is directed to clear all its dues, as per order dated 16.03.2020 and in the meanwhile no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner and its officials during this period. Application disposed off.
- 2020 (8) TMI 628 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - mode of service / communication of orders - It is the case of the petitioner that the assessment orders were not served on him but, immediately on receipt of the demand notices, he took the necessary steps and filed returns for the said period, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the demand notices, so as to get the benefit of withdrawal of the assessment orders - HELD THAT:- As per Section 169(c) and (d) of the GST Act the service of any communication to the e-mail address provided by an assessee at the time of registration, as also by making available the communication in the common portal of the department, is to be treated as an effective communication under the statute - the petitioner, therefore, cannot wish away the fact that the assessment orders were brought to his notice on 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 respectively. Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (8) TMI 627 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of SCN - direction to the respondents not to proceed with the adjudication proceedings until Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules is complied with - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice. List on 04th November, 2020.
- 2020 (8) TMI 626 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - it is the case of the petitioner that before passing Ext.P11 order he was not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing or an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, which is mandated as per the Rules - HELD THAT:- The learned Government Pleader would submit, on instructions, that it is a fact that there was no proper hearing afforded to the petitioner pursuant to the issuance of a show cause notice as mandated under the Rules, and the officer is ready to reconsider the matter, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to take copies of the documents sought to be relied against it in the proceedings, as also to consider any reasonable request for cross examination of persons. The respondent are directed to pass fresh orders in the matter after hearing the petitioner as mandated under Section 74(1) of the SGST Act - petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2020 (8) TMI 625 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of consignment - non-mention of the IGST payable in the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation of the goods - Rule 138A of the SGST Rules - HELD THAT:- There are force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the SGST Act and R.138 A of the SGST Rules, there is no requirement to mention the details of the tax payment in the copy of the e-way bill that accompanies the goods. It is not in dispute that the details of the tax paid were shown in the invoice that accompanied the transportation and there is no dispute raised by the respondents with regard to the accompaniment of the invoice along with the transportation. The 1st respondent are directed to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on production of a copy of this judgment - petition allowed.
- 2020 (8) TMI 624 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Filing of Form GST-TRAN-1 - extension of cut-off date for filing for filing of form - rule 117 of CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- Issue at hand primarily appears to be on facts, though certain legal issues have also been raised by the petitioner, whether rule 117 of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 should be treated as directory in nature. In order to have a considered view of the matter, let Respondents file their response. Accordingly, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the GST Council and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C to learned Advocate General are allowed four weeks' time to file their counter affidavit. Matter be listed after six weeks so that petitioner, if so advised, may file rejoinder in the meantime.
- 2020 (8) TMI 623 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Search and Seizure - the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent which is without any legal basis - it is submitted by the petitioner though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to pay 10% of the liability during the investigation, the petitioners herein are inclined to pay 20% of the alleged liability as of today - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the respondent submit the amount stated above is tentative and since the investigation is still going on, the amount of liability may increase. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits as and when the amount would increase they shall comply with further directions passed by this Court. It is further submitted the petitioner has paid ₹ 1.50 crores approx. to the department and that the raids are being conducted respondent at the office of the petitio....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 622 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - opportunity for personal hearing not provided - petitioner contends that when there is a specific request from the petitioner to provide personal hearing, it is the duty of the 1st respondent to provide such a personal hearing - HELD THAT:- The 1st respondent ought to have provided a personal hearing to the petitioner, since the petitioner requested for it specifically in its objections dt.18.02.2020 filed by it to the show cause notice issued on 31.01.2020 to it by the 1st respondent, and that failure of the 1st respondent to do so is a violation of principles of natural justice warranting setting aside of the impugned order. The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration - the 1st respondent shall provide a personal hearing to the petitioner; and then the 1st respondent shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with and communicate it to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2020 (8) TMI 604 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Direction to the respondents to issue copies of the seized documents - territorial Jurisdiction - transfer of the investigation to Kollam - HELD THAT:- The petitioners will no doubt be entitled to seek copies of the documents seized from their premises, if and when they are confronted by the respondents with any notice or other proceeding, wherein reliance is placed on the said seized documents. I, therefore, make it clear that in the event of any notice or other proceedings being issued to the petitioners in connection with the investigation that is currently ongoing, wherein reference is made to any document seized from the petitioners, the respondents shall permit the petitioners to take copies of those documents relied upon in the said notice/proceedings, before proceeding further in the matter. After the stage of investigation, the r....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 603 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Attachment of property - issuance of summons for the presence of applicant - applicant expressed inability to be present as he was medically advised not to step out - HELD THAT:- No sooner the writ applicant failed to respond to the summons issued to him by the respondent No.4 under Section 70 of the Act, the respondent No.4 proceeded to pass an order in Form GST DRC-01A fixing the liability of ₹ 1,07,05,725/- to be paid to the department - It is not in dispute that the writ applicant had no opportunity to make good his case that all his transactions are legal and free from any doubt. Besides the same, the writ applicant had informed the respondent No.4 that he has been medically advised not to get out of his house. During that particular period, the writ applicant had also undergone cataract surgery. Having regard to the fact that ....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 570 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - direction to deposit the profiteered amount - Vires of Section 171 of the CGST Act and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules - vires of Rules 123 and 129 of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- This Court in PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (6) TMI 626 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this Court directs the petitioner to deposit the principal profiteered amount i.e. ₹ 19,81,035/- (i.e. ₹ 20,80,087/- minus ₹ 99,052/-) in six equated monthly instalments commencing 01st September, 2020. The interest amount directed to be paid by the respondents is stayed till further orders. List on 03rd November, 2020.