Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 57 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 (5) TMI 982 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Validity of order of Magistrate in which he has ordered for police investigation after taking cognizance - it is alleged that the Magistrate had the power to call for police investigation, but he had previously not taken cognizance of the offences - prime contention of the petitioner is that the Magistrate having previously taken cognizance of the offences, cannot revert to calling for police investigation - Non-payment of GST - HELD THAT:- The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences disclosed in the complaint. His action of perusal of the case record which led to his decision to examine the witnesses under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. at a later date clearly establishes application of mind on his part onthe allegations made in the complaint and which led to his making up his mind about the requirement of carrying out examination under ....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 980 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Attachment of property - allegation against the petitioner company is that the petitioner company had fraudulently availed input tax credit on fictitious invoices to discharge the GST liability - petitioner submits that Section 67 cannot be against the future receivables so as to strangulate the entire business module of the petitioner - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, an amount of ₹ 5.68 Crores, which was lying in the account has been appropriated till date. The petitioner has also agreed to remit another sum of ₹ 1 Crore. Thus, as against the proposed/estimated tax due involved i.e. ₹ 21 Crores, the petitioner has already discharged a sum of ₹ 5.68 Crores i.e. 27.05%. After all, there is a mechanism provided under the Act for proper adjudication of the tax due ....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 928 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - offence punishable under Sections 132 (1)(B) & (C) read with 132(1)(I) Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 - non-bailable and cognizable offence or not - HELD THAT:- The present bail application deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offence under the Act is 5 years; secondly, there is no apprehension, if any, shown by the respondent-department about the accused-petitioner of running away, or tempering or influencing the witnesses in any manner; thirdly, challan has already been presented in the court and due to ongoing Covid-19 problem, the trial is not proceeding; fourthly to show his bona fides the petitioner has already deposited Rupees One Crore Fifty Four Thousand with the department and lastly the petitioner is a 68 years old person and he is n....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 885 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Non-compliance with directions contained in order dated 05.04.2021, regarding remission of amount due - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that there is a Coronavirus pandemic raging in the country, we are inclined to give a short accommodation to Ms. Malhotra, to place the petitioner’s difficulties on record, by way of an affidavit - In the meanwhile, Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra states that the petitioner, to show its bona fides, will remit ₹ 25,00,000 to the respondents, on or before 01.06.2021. Application disposed off.
- 2021 (5) TMI 884 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - Mr. Prakash’s say that, since Nirala Projects Pvt. Ltd. did not furnish the necessary details, the reconciliation exercise could not be carried out - HELD THAT:- Given the fact that two out of three entities have, it appears, passed on a substantial amount qua the purported profiteered amount, to their customers, the respondents will not, for the moment, subject the petitioners to coercive measures. List the matters on 09.08.2021.
- 2021 (5) TMI 878 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Remission of balance due alongwith interest - HELD THAT:- Petition to be admitted subject to payment of amount in two installments. Since the remittance involves an interest component, Mr. Aggarwala says that he would be able to inform us as to what would be the balance amount payable only after the instalment payable by the petitioner on or before 20.05.2021 is remitted. Mr. Aggarwala is directed to indicate, on the next date of hearing, as to what would be the balance amount payable towards tax, after the instalment payable on or before 20.05.2021, is remitted by the petitioner - List the matter on 24.05.2021.
- 2021 (5) TMI 811 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Correction of mistake in the return - contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that certain mistakes have crept in at the time of filing the GSTR-1 in Form B2B, due to which the invoice had been reflected in column B2Chf though the petitioner had paid all taxes as and when they were due - HELD THAT:- Without entering into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the present petition is being disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may file a fresh representation raising all his grievances before the competent authority which according to Sri Dhananjay Awasthi learned Advocate is Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Jhansi Division, Jhansi.
- 2021 (5) TMI 809 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Confirmation of demand of GST with interest and penalty - Non filing of reply to Show Cause notice (SCN) - non-compliance of mandatory provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, admittedly, proposing an adverse action, by way of a show cause notice, 1st respondent initiated action under the above provision of law. It is evident from a reading of the impugned order that on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to respond to the show cause notice by way of filing objections, 1st respondent herein confirmed the demand. When such a course of action is adopted by 1st respondent herein prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, the mandatory requirements of law as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017 are required to be follo....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 772 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - validity of SCN - HELD THAT:- The record presently available shows that prior to the issuance of the aforesaid order, a show cause notice dated 05.01.2021 was served on the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to file a reply to the same within seven working days from the date of service of the said notice - However, a perusal of the show cause notice shows that it is internally inconsistent. Mr. Mahana says, the authorized representative of the petitioner had appeared before the concerned officer pursuant to service of the show cause notice dated 05.01.2021 - issue notice to the respondents via all permissible modes including email. List the matter on 12.07.2021.
- 2021 (5) TMI 767 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Power u/s 83 as well as under Section 5(3) off KGST Act - designation of proper officer in terms of Sections 83(1) and 5(3) of the Act be adjudicated upon - Power to attach bank accounts - Invoice was not available for claiming Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- Statement is made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that on the basis of the material available necessary report would be sent to the concerned to initiate assessment proceedings as per law and that they do not intend to further proceed with the proceedings under Section 67 of the Act and such submission is stated to be made under instructions of the respondent No.3. The petitioner may be called upon to secure the interest of the revenue. In light of the said stand by putting the petitioner on terms while noticing the absence of the invoice, at the present point in time as....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 705 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - GST evasion - petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about one year and seven months - HELD THAT:- 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/- - Bail application allowed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 704 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - GST evasion - involvment of CA - availment by passing of ITC wrongfully by creating 38 fake firms - HELD THAT:- This bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner failed to appear before the Department while notices were issued to him, secondly, even after filing of complaint before the learned Trial court, he remained absconded for about one year and thirdly, the petitioner is a chartered accountant, who is master mind of the crime and he has created 38 fake firms and availed ITC wrongfully to the tune of ₹ 6,36,32,492/-. No case is made out to release the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Bail application dismissed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 701 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - GST evasion - petitioner being CA was instrumental in registration of 11 fake firms and these firms have availed fraudulent input tax credit - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the fact that Chartered Accountant has remained in custody for a period of one year and five months and that petitioner is also having a child and also considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, it is deemed proper to allow the bail application. 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 - Bail application allowed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 674 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bail application - petitioner was acting as middleman by procuring GST registration pertaining to defunct companies - petitioner was receiving commission for selling the details of GST registration of defunct companies - section 132 (5) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, it is the insistent stand of the respondent that the value of fraud is to the tune of around ₹ 55 Crores - A perusal of record shows that there are serious allegations against the present petitioner, who is the one of the main accused, that he along with co-accused, by perpetrating fraud and through paper transactions have claimed the relief to the tune of more than ₹ 55 Crores. The case is at preliminary stage and enlarging the petitioner at this point of time on bail would have a detrimental effect on the investigation. Further, without his r....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 621 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Service of summons - respondent submits that the summons are like spent bullets, and therefore, have become inefficacious - HELD THAT:- Mr. Bansal, on instructions, says, no steps for criminal prosecution qua the petitioner have been triggered based on the impugned summons. The writ petition is closed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 618 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Recovery of GST while the appeal is pending - requirement with the pre-deposit - section 107 (7) of JGST Act - HELD THAT:- In view of the specific provision of sub-Sections 6 & 7 of Section 107 of the JGST Act and in view of the admitted position that the subsequent garnishee notices dated 15.01.2021 covers both the appeals filed by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that on account of pre-deposit which has been made by the petitioner at appellate stage read with the mandate of section 107 (7) of JGST Act, the petitioner deserves an interim protection. The counsel for the State may seek instructions and file response to the affidavit dated 24.03.2021 and also give appropriate explanation for the statement made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.-2 which prima-facie appears to be incorrect, in view of the ....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Carry forward of ITC - ITC, as per tran-1, was not reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger - only grievance is that in the Electronic Credit Ledger, ITC has not been carried forward - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/S. BLUE BIRD PURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2019 (7) TMI 1102 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. In the said case also, the dealer had committed an inadvertent error in showing the available stock of goods in column 7(d) of the Form insetad of 7(a) of the Form - It was held in the case that In the present case, the Court is satisfied that, although the failure was on the part of the Petitioner to fill up the data concerning its stock in Column 7(d) of Form TRAN-1instead of Column 7(a), the error was inadvertent. The Respondents ought to have provided in t....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 601 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - validity of ex-parte assessment orders of the 1st respondent - Section 75(4) and 126(3) of the TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- The impugned order of assessment has been passed on 07.02.2020, whereas personal hearing has been on 03.12.2020, after much latter the impugned order of assessment made, which clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent. Even the Deputy Commissioner (ST)(Int), Madurai, has filed an appeal under Section 107 of TNGST Act, before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Goods and Service Tax, Madurai, as against the above said assessment orders passed by the 1st respondent, dated 07.02.2020, pointing out certain deficiency. In such view of the matter, no doubt in my mind that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent in....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 599 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Intermediaries helped in rotating the money between the buyers and sellers of various goods and services - Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120(E) IPC and Sections 132 (1) (i) read with Section 132(1) and (f) of the APGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The investigation in this complaint may go on. However, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioners including arrest as and when they appear before the Investigating Officer on 22.04.2021 by petitioner NO.2 and 24.04.2021 by petitioner No.l or such further dates without obtaining further orders from this Court. Post on 05.05.2021, in the motion list." 2440/2021
- 2021 (5) TMI 598 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Transitional input tax credit - Request for availing transitional credit rejected on the ground that the tax payer has no technical glitches in filing TRAN-1 as per the system logs - HELD THAT:- The writ appeals preferred by the Union of India have been dismissed. However, as the period to file TRAN-1 has been expired on 30.08.2020, the respondents-assessees were granted time to file/revise TRAN-1 up to 31.03.2021, meaning thereby more than six month’s time was granted to the assesses therein. While dismissing the present writ appeal, 30 days time is granted to the assessees to submit their GST TRAN-1 from today - Appeal dismissed.