Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 107 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 and Decision etc.
2023 (1) TMI 1238
Levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of UPGST Act - respondents submitted that the petitioner having not come forward in response to notice issued for assessment of the amount, the penalty was to be levied in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The order, imposing penalty on the petitioner, passed under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act, deserves to be set aside. It is undisputed case of the parties that the goods were accompanied by invoice and e-Way Bill, wherein the name of the petitioner is mentioned as consignor. The fact, that the petitioner is a registered dealer, is also not in dispute as even survey of petitioner's business firm was carried out immediately after detention of the goods and the firm was found to be carrying on its business. Once the documents clearly establish the name of the consignor, who is a r....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1237
Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - levy of penalty - it is alleged that the goods were not matching with the invoices as certain goods were found either to be more or less than the quantity mentioned in the invoices - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned dated October 7, 2022 deserves to be set aside for the reason that the consignors and consignees are present and accepting ownership of the seized goods. The consignors are registered dealers in the State of U.P. In view of the clarification given by the Board vide its Circular dated 31, 2018, levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act was not called for and could not be justified as Section 129(1)(a) of the Act provides that where owner of the goods comes forward for payment of penalty, the amount has to be two hundred per cent of ....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1231
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - case of the petitioner is that he has not been able to get the show cause notice issued by the respondent and, therefore, he could not submit the reply within the stipulated time - HELD THAT:- The present petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the order passed by this Court in TECHNOSUN INDIA PVT. LTD. LUCKNOW THRU. ITS DIRECTOR AMIT KUMAR GAUTAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THRU. PRIN. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL G.S.T., LKO. U.P. AND 2 OTHERS [2022 (9) TMI 1412 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - In the said judgment, the Court has held that the impugned order does not assign any reason whatsoever for cancelling registration of the petitioner and is passed only on the ground that reply to the show cause notice is not given. The non-submission of reply to the show cause cannot be a ground for cancellation of....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1225
Classification of supply - inter-state supply or intra-state supply? - supply of mobile recharge coupons and Direct To Home (DTH) recharge vouchers to recipients, who are located in other States - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the amount of tax due on the transaction has already been paid and only dispute is whether it is to be treated as intra-state sale or inter-state sale, recovery of the demand raised vide order dated December 3, 2022 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Adjourned to April 27, 2023.
2023 (1) TMI 1224
Detention of goods - Movement of goods through valid e-way bill - Levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 - bogus firms - it is alleged that selling dealer was non existent at the place where his firm is said to have been registered and only through the e-way bill generated, goods were being sent from some other undisclosed place and ITC was to be claimed - HELD THAT:- Both the authorities have recorded a categorical finding to the effect that selling dealer, M/s. Sunshine Overseas was registered at Shri Ram Colony, Siya Wali Masjid, Rajeev Nagar, North East Delhi, Delhi. The e-way bill mentioned the goods to have been dispatched from the said place. The statement of the driver recorded disclosed that goods were loaded from Mayapuri, Delhi, which is 18 kms. away from Rajeev Nagar. On physical verification of the prem....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1223
Validity of summary SCN - Attachment of Bank Account of petitioner - input tax credit on inward supply in accordance with Section 16 of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It transpires that a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the JGST Act, 2017 dated 7.1.2022 (Annexure-1) for the tax period January 2019-February 2019 was issued. However, from bare perusal of Annexure-1, it appears that the same is issued in a format without striking out of irrelevant particulars, thus the same is vague and does not spell out clearly the contravention for which the petitioner is charged. It is in fact, worse than summary of show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 of the same date. Now it is well settled that the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) of the Act is not mere a formality. As a matter of fact, the intent of legi....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1222
Blocking of electronic credit ledger - No reasons were informed - Prayer for grant of the interim order pending consideration of such declaratory relief - vires of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The concession made by the learned advocate for the appellant on behalf of the appellant is placed on record and the prayer for declaration of Rule 86A of the said Rules as ultra vires is struck off. The other prayer made by the appellant/writ petitioner is to withdraw the blocking of the electronic credit ledger and restore the input tax credit. Such positive direction cannot be granted at this stage as the appellant does not know as to what are the reasons, which weighed in the mind of the appropriate authority before passing the order blocking the electronic credit ledger - the following order will meet....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1167
Seeking adjudication by this Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - classification of the Customs & Central Excise Tariff Act its product and declaration to this effect - Nonwoven Fabric - PSB Bed Sheet manufactured of non-woven fabric - HELD THAT:- This Writ Court in exercise of its Constitution Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not act as an expertise to scrutinise the composition and mode of manufacture of a product like of this nature and do the job of classifying a product as to under which classification list of the Customs Tariff Act such product falls since it requires scientific and technical analysis to be conducted by expertise in such scientific and technical field. In exercise of Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Writ ....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1166
Legality of search, seizure, actions and prepared panchnama - legality of release of 5 seized trucks which were empty and not loaded with any goods - direction to respondent No.4 to get the goods stored under seized 20 barrels be tested for its characteristics, specification and ingredients by appropriate government laboratory - HELD THAT:- Since a show cause notice dated 04.12.2020 has been issued to the petitioner and others in which the validity of the panchnama is under consideration, hence the petitioner is having efficacious remedy to contest the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority. The petitioner is free to apply to the adjudication authority. The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority that if such an application is filed by the petitioner, the same be considered in accordance with the law expeditiously. Petition dismissed.
2023 (1) TMI 1131
Realization of its Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner as for the Financial Year 2018-19 last date for availing ITC as per provisions under Section 16(4) of Jharkhand Goods & Service Act, 2017 - violation of Section 16(4) of JGST Act, 2017 or not - violation of principles of natural justice or not - HELD THAT:- It appears that a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Act dated 12.02.2022 (Annexure-1) was issued to the petitioner which was issued in a format without striking out the irrelevant particulars and thus, there won’t be an exaggeration in treating the same as vague as it does not spell out the contraventions for which the petitioner is charged. As a matter of fact, it is worse than the summary of show cause notice issued under FORM GST DRC-01 of the even date (Annexure-2). It f....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1130
Cancellation of their respective GST Registrations of petitioners - cancellation on the ground that the said appeals were filed beyond the maximum time limit stipulated under section 107 of GST Act - Difference of opinion. HELD THAT:- While dealing with the very same issue, one of the Hon'ble Single Judges of this Court (Anita Sumanth, J.) in MR. PANDIDORAI SETHUPATHI RAJA VERSUS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, CHENNAI [2022 (12) TMI 1028 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that this Court is having the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal under section 107 of the GST Act under certain extraordinary circumstances mentioned in the said order. However, another Hon'ble Judge of this Court in HEMASRI ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SAKTHI NARAYANAN VERSUS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY / THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) GST-A....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1129
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - whether section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was adhered to by the respondents or not? - HELD THAT:- As seen from section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer after detaining the goods or conveyance shall issue a notice of such detention or seizure specifying the penalty payable and thereafter, pass an order within a period of seven days from the date of service of such notice, for payment of penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 129. In the instant case, after detaining the petitioner's vehicle and the goods on 26.10.2022, notice was issued by the respondents on 31.10.2022 within seven days from the date of detention. However, the consequential order for payment of penalty was passed only on 10.11.2022....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1128
Confiscation of goods u/s 130 - Levy of penalty - goods in question were supported by valid documents - whether warrant exists for initiation, continuation and conclusion of proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts or not? - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts of the case are that the 2nd petitioner was carrying certain gold ornaments in a train from Thrissur to Alleppy. He was initially intercepted by the officials attached to the Railway Protection Force and the 2nd petitioner was able to only shown certain documents on his mobile phone, which according to the petitioners, suggest that the gold ornaments were being carried in a valid manner and in accordance with all the requirements of the CGST/SGST Acts and the Rules made thereunder. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner ha....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1127
Betting/gambling - Actionable claim - whether nature of gaming services as provided by it is in the nature of services or an actionable claim or not? - HELD THAT:- A Division Bench of this Court in CHANDRESH SANKHLA VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [2020 (2) TMI 1062 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] in respect of a similar company Dream11 which also provided gaming services online held that the issue is no longer res-integra and as such gaming services are not in the nature of betting/gambling. Some of the games offered by the petitioners online have already been held to be games of skill rather than that of chance or that of betting/gambling. Thus when the matter is so settled by various Courts, the issuance of the impugned show cause notice is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, we call upon the respondents to file c....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1098
Seeking release of confiscated goods - whether the authority was justified in holding that the appellant is not the owner of the goods? - HELD THAT:- The appeal is disposed off with a direction to the appellant to file an application before the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Goods and Services Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal, Durgapur zone seeking relief under Section 129(1) (a) of the said Act and such application shall be filed within one week from the date of receipt of the server copy of this judgment and order. On receipt of the said application, the said authority shall independently consider such a prayer uninfluenced by any of the observations made in its order dated 12th December, 2022, which is subject matter of the writ petition and such order shall be passed within a period of 10 days from the date on which the application is filed by the appellant. Appeal disposed off.
2023 (1) TMI 1097
Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - Attachment of Bank accounts of appellant - Initiation of garnishee proceedings - HELD THAT:- When the appeal was presented, the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax has been complied with by the appellant. If that be so, no coercive action should be taken against the appellant till the appeal is heard and disposed of. In terms of the above direction, the appellant is granted liberty to file an appropriate interim application in the appeal petition and the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders for the purpose of lifting the garnishee order and the bank attachment. The appellant shall file the application in the statutory appeal not later than 10th February, 2023. Appeal disposed off.
2023 (1) TMI 1096
Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that proceeding u/s 74 of CGST Act is still pending, he is cooperating with the investigation/enquiry and did not misuse the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail which was granted on 22.03.2021 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. HELD THAT:- Learned AGA for the State does not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the appellant. The aforesaid interim anticipatory bail order dated 22.03.2021 is made absolute till finalization of proceedings on the terms and conditions as indicated in the above order dated 22.03.2021 - the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.
2023 (1) TMI 1095
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactment - Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - HELD THAT:- The petitioner claims to be a transporter who was transporting goods for a dealer from the Tiruppur District in Tamil Nadu to a recipient in Hyderabad, Telangana. The consignment of Ready-Made Textile/ Hosiery Garments were being transported by the appellant for an unknown consignor and consigneer whose name has been later given as Star Handlooms in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition. About 58 bundles of Textile/ Hosiery Garments were being transported by the appellant and that out of 58 bundles 33 did not accompany necessary documents including invoices. For the balance, it can be inferred there was only lorry receipts. Under these circumstances,....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1094
Cancellation of the Registration Certificate of petitioner - failure to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- In identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , SALEM BAZAAR. [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] had held that The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the ....... + More
2023 (1) TMI 1028
Seeking return of money recovered / taken away during search - It is contended by the petitioner that the concerned officers could have no reason to believe that any goods liable for confiscation were lying in the premises of the petitioners - whether cash can be seized by the officers under Section 67(2) of the GST Act? - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, a plain reading of Section 67(2) of the GST Act indicates that the seizure is limited to goods liable for confiscation or any documents, books or things, which may be “useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act”. Clearly, cash does not fall within the definition of goods. And, prima facie, it is difficult to accept that cash could be termed as a ‘thing’ useful or relevant for proceedings under the GST Act. The second proviso to Section 67(2) of the GST Act a....... + More