Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 143 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.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1165 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appeal rejected nearly after one year on the ground that it was filed manually instead of electronically as contrary to Rule 108(1) of APGST Rules, 2017 - merits in the writ petition to allow or not - HELD THAT:- As seen from Rule 108(1) of AP GST Rules, 2017, till the Chief Commissioner specifies one particular mode of filing, the concerned appellant can choose to file the appeal either electronically or otherwise i.e., manually. In that view, the interpretation of the 1st respondent that since the Chief Commissioner has not given notification that the manual filing of the appeal can be accepted by the appellate authority, the appellant cannot file the appeal in manual form is contrary to the purport of Rule 108(1) of AP GST Rules, 2017. The other argument of learned Government Pleader representing learned Add....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 1160 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - impugned show cause notice for the same period has been issued, demanding further amounts from the petitioner towards CGST - It is the contention of petitioner that under Section 129(1) of the Finance Act, 2019, after the issuance of discharge certificate, such notice could not have been issued - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. List on 15th March, 2021.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1159 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Erroneous impleadment of Authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax as respondent, instead of the State Authority - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. List on 25th March, 2021.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1156 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of application - final order of confiscation in Form GST-MOV 11 has already been passed - HELD THAT:- It needs to be noted that the writ applicant herein is a purchaser of the goods in question. The MOV-11 order has been passed against the seller. According to Mr. Kathiriya, the learned AGP, the whereabouts of the seller are not known to the Department. In such circumstances, the only remedy now available for the writ applicant is to recover the amount paid, if any, to the seller in accordance with law - Application disposed off.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1125 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Arrest under section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - offence of availing ineligible Input Tax Credit - out of the alleged availing of ineligible Input Tax Credit of slightly more than ₹ 9 crores, petitioner No.1 has deposited ₹ 4.80 crores which is more than 50% of the alleged dues - HELD THAT:- It is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 till the next date. However, petitioner Nos.2, 7 and 8 shall appear before the investigating authority as summoned on 26.02.2021 at 11:00 a.m. and thereafter as and when summoned. Rest of the petitioners shall appear before the investigating authority as and when summoned and co-operate with the investigation. Stand over to 16.03.2021 for filing of reply and rejoinder.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1124 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Notice/summons issued by the Central Tax Authority whereas adjudication u/s 74 had been made by the State Authority - contention is that once the Central Tax Authority had initiated action, the proceeding was required to be brought to its logical end by the same authority - HELD THAT:- It appears from the perusal of the order dated 8th September, 2020 that the show cause notice had been served under Section 74(2) of the Act and the date was fixed for submitting explanation/objections by the petitioner. The order impugned dated 8th September, 2020 records that the petitioner did not appear before the proper Officer - As the proceedings for determination and levy of tax and penalty had been initiated by the State Tax Authority, this Court does not find substance in the challenge to the jurisdiction of respondent no. 2 to pass order for dete....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 1121 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and Rules contained in Chapter XV of the central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondents - Subject to the petitioner paying the entire demanded amount, less the GST amount already deposited, in six equal monthly instalments commencing from the month of February, 2021, there shall be stay of recovery.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1120 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund sought of on amount deposited - petitioner was compelled to deposit amount with the respondents and though the said amount was deposited as far back as on 1st July, 2020 and 31st August, 2020 but the respondents are merely retaining the said amount and have not taken any further action - Provisional attachment of Bank Account of petitioner - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It appears that the respondents were required to issue notices under Sections 73 and/or 74 of the Act to the petitioner and which the respondents have not done till now. It prima facie appears that the respondents, taking advantage of the petitioner having been so compelled to make the deposit, albeit without prejudice to its rights and contentions, are not in a hurry. Thus, unless the respondents issue notice, with....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 1119 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of selling dealer - submission of petitioner is that at the time of purchase of goods/stocks, the registration of the selling dealer was valid - HELD THAT:- Matter requires consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 10% of the disputed tax liability has been deposited in terms of Section-107(6) of the Act, the appeal before the Tribunal (when constituted) would be maintainable upon deposit of 20% of the remaining tax amount. The petitioner is willing to deposit that amount - Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of State-respondents. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1117 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - Section 83 of the CGST Act - petitioner submits that the attachment of the bank accounts has brought the entire functioning of the company to a standstill, as the Petitioner is unable to dispense salary to approximately 15000 employees and discharge statutory dues like EPF, ESIC and labour welfare schemes etc. - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, SPP accepts notice on behalf of respondents and submits that he would like to take instruction and file short affidavit/ status report within one day. List on 24th February, 2021.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1097 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Interest for delay in payment of G.S.T. - validity of adjudication orders - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the State and the CGST Council are required to seek specific instruction s on this issue and make their stand clear by the next date. Let these cases appear on 14th January 2021.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1048 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Bail - GST Evasion - supplier's firms of plastic scrap not found in existence - offence under section 132 (1)(c) and 132(1)((i) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 - harsh and unreasonable conditions imposed for granting bail - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that conditions for grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making a grant of bail illusory. The conditions while granting bail should be reasonable, so that it may not frustrate the very object of granting bail. Discretion exercised by the Court while imposing conditions should not be arbitrary, but it should be keeping in mind to strike balance between the accused and prosecution. In the present case, it is admitted facts to the counsel for the parties that as on date out of disputed amount of ₹ 9,51,00,000/-, the app....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 1045 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - Input tax credit - bogus firms - offence under Sections 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. Bail application allowed.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1043 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking direction for opening of the GST portal to enable them to file the statutory Form necessary for migrating the eligible input tax credit under the GST regime - HELD THAT:- Although filing with the office of Commissioner/ VATO, Ward-71, Delhi was not in accordance with the procedure under the CGST Act, 2017 and perhaps the abovementioned officer was not competent to receive the TRAN-1 Form, but, notwithstanding the mistake, there is another hurdle that the Petitioner must cross i.e., the delay on the part of the Petitioner in approaching this Court. However, considering the fact that in a batch of petitions, this Court has examined similar issues and the same are pending decision, at this stage we consider it appropriate to issue notice to the Respondents, leaving all contentions open. Issue notice to the other Respondents by all modes, returnable on 5th July, 2021.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1042 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Works Contract - Manner of payment of relevant tax for the period for which the work is continued - AVAT Act, 2005 or AGST Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- Instead of issuing notice, public interest would be better served, if a direction is issued to the Commissioner of Tax, Assam to take a decision on the aspect as to for the work period after the advent of the GST regime, which of the tax regimes would be applicable i.e. whether the AVAT Act, 2005 or the AGST Act, 2017. As the matter involves public interest, it is directed that the Commissioner of Tax to take a final decision on the aforesaid aspect within a period of one month from today.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1041 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Seeking direction to allow acceptance of Form GST TRAN-I as it could not be submitted in time on GSTN portal - transitional credit - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the GSTN, Mr. Amit Kumar and State, Mr. Piyush Chitresh are allowed 4 weeks' time to file counter affidavit positively. The affidavit of GSTN shall, in particular, give the details of the log of the petitioner upto 27th December, 2017 to show whether petitioner had made an attempt to submit Form GST TRAN-I or not besides answering the plea relating to technical glitches. Petitioner may file reply, if so advised, within one week thereafter. Matter be listed after 5 weeks.
- 2021 (2) TMI 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not heard in person prior to passing of the impugned order - Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is true that neither Section 73 nor Section 74 specifically require an assessing officer to extend the opportunity of personal hearing to an assessee prior to completion of proceeding. However, Section 75 of the Act, a general provision relating to the procedure to be followed in determination of tax at sub section (4) thereof, contemplates that an opportunity of personal hearing shall be granted in all cases where a specific request is received, or where the officer contemplates adverse decision against the assessee. Thus, it is only in cases where the explanation offered by the assessee is accepted that there is no necessity for personal hea....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 990 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that G.S.T. Tribunal under the Act, 2017 has yet not been constituted - Section 129 (1) (b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Since the challenge to the impugned orders relates to questions of fact and the Appellate Tribunal is the last fact finding authority, therefore, we leave it open for all the petitioners to challenge the impugned orders before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act/ U.P. GST Act as and when the State Bench and Area Benches of the Appellate Tribunal are constituted in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Release of vehicle - HELD THAT:- A self contained procedure has been provided under the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 for release of the vehicle on fulfillment of the conditions after seizure of the ....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 986 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of petitioner's GST registration - scope of SCN - petitioners say that the cancellation order has been made on grounds which did not find place in the show cause notice - HELD THAT:- Considering the charges made in the show cause notice and those in the order of cancellation, it appears that certain fact finding acts have been undertaken by the Proper Officer. The writ Court cannot go into the correctness of fact finding exercise said to have been undertaken by the Proper Officer. Since an alternative remedy in form of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available to the petitioners, which is more competent to deal with the fact finding issues, I am not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition - The petitioners are permitted to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act within 2nd Ma....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 984 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Validity of SCN for cancellation of GST registration - Failure to file GST returns and pay taxes due ot covid-19 - Seeking to permit the petitioner to remit the arrears of tax within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court - Rule 22 of the GST and ST Rules 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner's establishment came to be registered on 04/07/2020 and accordingly registration certificate, Ext.P1 came to be issued in its favour. On 11/02/2021, a notice in Form GST REG-17/31 came to be issued to the petitioner asking it to show-cause as to why its registration should not be canceled. The show-cause notice mention the reason for intended cancellation of registration as "any tax payer other than composition tax payer has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months". The petitioner is directed by this show-cause notice ....... + More