|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 168 Records
-
2023 (1) TMI 335 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Demand of Interim Order - HELD THAT:- There is no scope of passing any interim order in the matter and the issue involved in this writ petition requires affidavit from the respondent for final adjudication.
Let the respondents file affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks, petitioners to file reply thereto, if any, within two weeks thereafter - List this matter for final hearing after eight weeks.
-
2023 (1) TMI 334 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Inter-state transaction or intra-state transaction or not - whether the transaction of supply of manpower by the petitioner to a company in Rajasthan is an inter-state transaction taxable as CGST+RGST, or it is an intra-state transaction liable to be taxed as IGST? - HELD THAT:- The petitioner admittedly has deposited 18% of IGST and that 35% of the CGST+RGST has been recovered by the respondents by attaching the accounts of the petitioner - the issue of inter-state transaction/intra-state transaction is a legal issue, though depending upon the facts of the case and as such, requires deeper consideration.
For the reasons that validity of certain provisions is also under challenge, we consider it appropriate to entertain the writ petition and call upon the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India to submit their response to the writ petition within a period of one month, so that the matter may be heard finally immediately thereafter.
Grant of interim protection - HELD THAT:- The petitioner cannot be compelled to pay tax on the services rendered by it twice, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is provided that the petitioner may apply for the refund of the IGST in the prescribed form as per the Act and the Rules within a period of two weeks from today and in the event such application is moved and is found to be in order, the respondents shall get it processed within a period of two months from the receipt of the said application, as has been provided under the Rules, and the petitioner is directed to deposit the balance 65% of CGST+RGST within a period of three months from today.
List this petition for admission/final disposal after six weeks.
-
2023 (1) TMI 333 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Input Tax Credit - the non-payment of the GST amount charged by the supplier - appellants filed the writ petition contending that the non-payment of the GST amount charged by the 4th respondent to the appellants is violative of Article 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and against the provisions of the CGST and WBGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the appellants are aggrieved persons against the advance ruling. The 4th respondent having not preferred an appeal, such conduct of the 4th respondent cannot prejudice the rights of the appellants. Admittedly, the invoices, which were subject matter of consideration by the authority were the invoices raised by the appellants. Therefore, the appellants should have been put on notice by the authority or in other words, the 4th respondent ought to have impleaded the appellants in the proceedings before the authority.
The appellants cannot be nonsuited by virtue of an order, which was passed by the authority without hearing them. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants should not be left remediless. Though it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State that appeal has been provided to the appellate authority and if the appellants qualify the definition of an aggrieved person, they could very well approach the appellate authority - since the appellants have contended that sufficient factual details were not placed before the authority, directing the appellants to prefer an appeal to the appellate authority may not be effective since the facts, which the appellants seek to bring on record were not part of the records before the original authority.
The matter has to be re-examined by the authority themselves instead of directing the appellants to approach the appellate authority - the matter is remanded back to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (1) TMI 332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Service of SCN - discrepancies pertaining to difference in turn over between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B, difference between GSTR 3B Vs GSTR 2A - input mismatch - it is alleged that the impugned order was not preceded by Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A - show cause notice [SCN] was issued by the respondent before making the impugned order, or not - rectification petition under Section 161 of TN-G&ST Act.
Whether the impugned order not being preceded by Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A? - HELD THAT:- As the issue is now not statutorily imperative and as it is optional at the instance of the respondent (Revenue), the first point of campaign stands doused. This takes this Court to the second point namely, SCN prior to issue of the impugned order. Dealing with erstwhile 'the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act No.32 of 2006)' [hereinafter 'TNVAT Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] which stood subsumed by Goods and Services Tax regime which kicked in on and from 01.07.2017, this Court held that it is not imperative to issue a SCN for a revision under Section 22(4) of erstwhile TNVAT Act, 2006 unlike best judgment method revision under Section 27 of TNVAT Act wherein it is statutorily imperative to issue SCN before resorting to Section 27 of TNVAT Act - the expression 'errors apparent on the face of record' has been repeatedly explained by this Court to be errors which are so obvious and so palpable (tangible if one may say so) that no inferential process is required or no inferential process need to be applied to detect the error. A careful perusal of these issues set out herein will make it clear that they may not qualify as errors apparent on the face of record but this Court refrains itself from expressing any view or opinion on the same as this Court intends to preserve the rights of the writ petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 107 of TN-G&ST Act, if the writ petitioner is so advised and if the writ petitioner is desires to do so.
This Court to the inevitable sequitur that the captioned main writ petition fails. However, before dismissing the captioned writ petition, it is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner are preserved, if the writ petitioner chooses to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 107 of TN-G&ST Act.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 331 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
100% EOU - rejection of refund claim - appeal filed within the time limitation - Section 107 of TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- This Court considering the bonafides on the part of the writ petitioner and also taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case including the obtaining factual position that the refund amount claimed in barely Rs.9.42 lakhs, treats this case as a one off matter, making it clear that it will not serve as precedent in all and every such case is inclined to treat 12.07.2022 as the date of appeal.
It is to be noted that the case of the writ petitioner qua refund of a little over 9.42 lakhs is they have made deemed export as supply has been made to a 100% EOU but the refund order dated 06.04.2022 made by the [first respondent now] proceeds on the basis that it is a wrong ITC claim. This Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion or view on this aspect of the matter as it would now be in the hands of the second respondent/Appellate Authority to decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law.
The writ petitioner shall refile the second refund application (already filed) as appeal (in appeal format) before second respondent - Writ Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 330 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, CHHATTISGARH
Classification of supply - composite supply or not - manufacture, sale and installation of electrical equipments, ranging from LED lightings, industrial and domestic switchgears, metering solutions, wires and cables, etc. - applicability of Entry 3(iv)(a) of Notification no. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - benefit of concessional rate of duty - whether the contract undertaken by the Applicant for design, supply, installation and commissioning, etc. of Highway lighting system for the project of development, maintenance and management of National Highway-111 qualifies as Works contract under the GST regime? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case under consideration, as is forthcoming from the documents furnished before us by the applicant, M/s Bilaspur Pathrapali Road Private Limited, Ahmedabad (Concessionaire) was awarded a contract dated 14.05.2018 by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Ministry of Road Transport and Highway (MoRTH), Government of India (GoI) relating to development, maintenance and management of 4 laning of Bilaspur to Pathrapali section of NH-111 (NH-130) from 0.000 km to 53.300 km in the State of Chhattisgarh under Bharatmala on Hybrid Annuity Mode. Subsequently, Concessionaire entered into an agreement with AIIL for Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) works of development, maintenance and management of 4 laning of Bilaspur to Pathrapali Section of NH-111 (NH-130) from 0.000 km to 53.300 km in the State of Chhattisgarh. ln background of the aforesaid facts i.e. award of contract for development, maintenance and management of NH-111 by NHAI to Concessionaire and award of contract for EPC works relating to said project by Concessionaire to AIIL.
The scope of work awarded to the applicant covers only the activities involved in the Lighting works at various locations including highway and flyover/VUPS/bridges area across the length of the project as indicated in TCS Schedule and as per approved design basis by IE/NHAI. In addition to the above work of electrification or lighting works the applicant is responsible for Supply, installation & testing of electrical materials as per BOQ with the pre-condition that all the fixtures, panels, wires/ cables, lights, earthing materials, and other items complete in all respect, shall confirm to established specifications - In the instant case in hand, it is only that the civil works involved for completion of such electrical “installation services” have been included in the scope of work entrusted upon the applicant.
The instant supply of the applicant of the work of Highway Lighting System / Lighting works at various locations including highway and flyover/VUPS/bridges gets aptly covered under “Installation services”, being special trade installation services involving the installation of basic electrical wiring circuits or fittings in buildings and other construction projects, as also being electrical installation services of illumination and signalling systems for roads - The work undertaken by the applicant in entirety, as elaborately discussed herein is nothing but electrical “Installation services” of illumination for roads and by no stretch of imagination can be termed as civil engineering works.
The benefit of aforesaid Notification as provided under S.no. 3(iv)(a) of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended is available only to “Construction services” of Heading no. 9954, supplied by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of a road, bridge, tunnel, or terminal for road transportation for use by general public and not to the instant work of Highway Lighting System which is nothing but electrical installation services of illumination for roads - in the instant case the basic requirement, for eligibility to the said exemption as provided under S.no. 3(iv)(a) of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended, of getting covered under Heading 9954 under “Construction service” supplied by way of construction of a road stares unfulfilled, as the instant supply pertains to electrical “Installation services” of illumination for roads.
Whether the instant supply of installation of highway lighting system undertaken by the applicant is a Composite supply? - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the service order read with Bill of Quantities (BOQ), it is clear that the Applicant is supplying all the goods required for highway lighting system as well is responsible for installation of such goods, such as lighting pole, lights, earthing work, etc.
On the basis of evidences furnished by the applicant there exist all reasonable grounds to hold that natural bundle of supply of goods and services is prevalent in the instant supply of installation services of “highway lighting system” and these are supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business by the applicant. Besides this, the impugned supply of installation services in entirety thereof can only be construed to be made, once whole of the supplies are made by the applicant. Thus, we come to the considered conclusion that the second criterion of “composite supply” stands fulfilled in the instant supply of “installation services” of “highway lighting system” made by the applicant.
Whether the work of installation of highway lighting system, rendered by the applicant qualifies being Works Contract, much essential for availing the claimed exemption as provided under S.no. 3(v)(a) of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended, vide Notification 01/2018 Central Tax (Rate) doted 25.01.2018? - HELD THAT:- There exists a clear demarcation of a works contract as a supply of service under GST. Besides this, as per section 17(5) (c) of the CGST Act, 2017, input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the works contract services when supplied for construction of an immovable property (other than plant and machinery) except where it is an input service for further supply of works contract service. Thus, ITC for works contract also stands restricted and can be availed only by one’ who is in the same line of business and is using such services received for further supply of works contract service.
From the definition, a work shall be treated as Works Contract if that work is done for land or earth or for immovable property and there is transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract. Immovable property, by its very definition means that it cannot be moved and cannot be detached or dismantled from the land or earth and further that dismantling of the same would render it defunct / redundant. Immovable property would include in its ambit land and the things which are attached to or embedded in the lard such as buildings, bridges etc. However not everything that is attached to the land would automatically constitute an immovable property - In the case present case under consideration, as is forthcoming from the various clauses of the service order issued by M/s AIIL in favor of the applicant, the work of installation services of highway lighting system to be installed by the applicant on the National Highway comes into existence in an immovable condition and there appears no intention to move the same in future to any other place.
The benefit of the entry at Sl.no. 3(iv)(a) is not eligible to M/s HPL Electric and Power Limited, behind Mata Garage, Jai Bhole Complex, Pandri, Raipur,Chhattisgarh, 492001 GSTIN-22AAACH0165J1ZO, as the basic requirement for eligibility to the said exemption as provided under S.no. 3(iv)(a) of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended, of getting covered under “Construction service” under Heading 9954 stands unfulfilled, whereas the instant supply pertains to electrical “Installation services” . The work undertaken by the applicant is electrical installation services of illumination for roads - As regards the issue of applicability of Entry 3(iv) (a) of Not. No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) as applicable in case of sees provided by the sub-contractor raised by the applicant, hem sae has no relevance as the applicant eligible to be benefit of the claimed exemption.
-
2023 (1) TMI 289 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Supplementary refund of unutilized input tax credit pertaining to Compensatory Cess on inputs used in relation to zero-rated supplies - periods February, 2018 to June, 2018 - refund application(s) being filed manually - Compliance with the provisions of Section 54 read with formula prescribed under Rule 89(4) with reference to claim made under Section 16 of the IGST Act.
HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the authority concerned, having adjudicated the application for refund based on transactions of all the three units taken together as per the calculation made by the petitioner itself, had no scope for him to again entertain further claim made on the self-same transactions by computing such refund taking into consideration unit-wise figures, more so when the returns have been furnished by disclosing consolidated figures. Such fresh claim in the garb of supplementary refund would tantamount to review of decision already taken by the Assistant Commissioner-opposite party No.6 and the petitioner had already accepted such grant of refund based on claim set up on its own calculation.
The claim for refund of unutilized input tax credit as found in the provisions of Section 16(3) of the IGST Act and Section 16(1) read with Section 54(1) of the GST Act is subject to manner, condition and restriction as “prescribed”. Section 2(87) of the GST Act defines the term “prescribed” to mean “prescribed by rules made under this Act on the recommendations of the Council”. Section 164 of the GST Act empowers the Government to frame rules. Refund of unutilized input tax credit has been provided under Section 54. Corresponding rules are found in Rule 89 of the GST Rules, which is in conformity with the powers conferred under Section 164 of the GST Act.
The petitioner did not choose to avail the opportunity of personal hearing as instructed in the aforesaid notice/intimation, but challenged the same before this Court by way of writ petition. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is not deprived of availing alternative remedy to question the legality of decision taken by the Assistant Commissioner-opposite party No.6 who returned the supplementary application(s) for refund. In the present case, it is not the sole reason to discard manual filing of supplementary refund application based on Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019, but the authority concerned had returned such application assigning different reasons also. Such a decision of Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Jharsuguda Division could be challenged in appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.
This Court does not find any merit in the nature of challenge made in the writ petitions and declines to read down Rule 89(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 288 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Challenging the order of demand of GST - time limitation for filing appeal - it is alleged that the impugned order has not been served on the writ petitioner by resorting to the method of service set out in Section 169 (1)(b) of TNG& ST Act - HELD THAT:- A careful perusal of language in which Section 169 is couched makes it clear that methods of service adumbrated therein are not conjunctive but are alternate methods of service. The reason is, the language in which sub-section (1) is couched makes it clear that service shall be by one of the methods adumbrated therein. To be noted as many as six methods (a) to (f) have been adumbrated therein.
Be that as it may, though not averred in the writ affidavit, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that writ petitioner attempted to prefer an appeal against the impugned order to the Appellate Authority by way of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of TN-G&ST Act and the appeal is not being entertained. Absent averments and absent material in the case file before this Court, this Court does not want to make forays into these territories. Suffice to say that an appeal under Section 107 is subject to a 'prescribed period of limitation' and a 'condonable period of limitation' i.e., three months and one month respectively. It is also circumscribed by a pre-deposit condition. If the writ petitioner is able to satisfy the Appellate Authority qua limitation and pre-deposit, it is open to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 287 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, CHHATTISGARH
Rate of GST - requirement of defining the terms “Central Government”, “State Government'', “Union Territory” and “Local Authority” - N/N. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate), on 28th June 2017 - service recipient - Classification of the Agencies listed out being Corporation or Government Organizations into Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, local authority, Government Authority or a Government Entity - HELD THAT:- For availing the benefit as stipulated supra at S.no. 3(iii)(b), S.no. 3 (vi)(b) and S.no. 3 (vi)(c) ibid of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended, all the conditions mentioned therein has to be necessarily fulfilled.
As regards the request of seeking clarification as to whether corporations and departments working under various Ministries of Central Government, State Governments and Union Territory would form part of Central Government/ State Government/ Union territory or Local Authority, it is quite evident that various departments functioning directly under the Central / State Government /Union territory in their own capacity would form part of the respective Governments whereas corporations per se cannot be generalized as being Central / State Government, and they can be treated as other entities viz. Governmental authority, Government Entity etc. as defined in the statute, subject to fulfillment of conditions as mentioned in the definitions / statute.
Service recipient - If an organization has awarded their company a contract but the said organization is entrusted by a Ministry/ Department of Government to float the tender and award the work to the eligible Contractor, then who will be deemed to be the services recipient, Government or the organization? - HELD THAT:- The definition under Section-2(93) of the CGST Act, 2017 stipulates regarding the service recipient viz. recipient of the supply of goods or services is someone who is liable for payment of consideration for the supply of goods or services. If no consideration is payable, the person to whom the goods are delivered or made available, or uses the goods or services shall qualify as the recipient.
Classification of the Agencies listed out being Corporation or Government Organizations into Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, local authority, Government Authority or a Government Entity - HELD THAT:- As classification of entities, that too functional at a place outside the jurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgarh is not within the scope and purview of advance rulings under Section 98 ibid read with Section 97(2), this authority is not in a position to pass any ruling regarding the status of the said entities as being a Corporation or Government Organizations into Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, local authority, Government Authority or a Government Entity. Even otherwise, this authority is of the view that without having the incorporation details / certificate of incorporation and their financial / commercial and business details, it would not be possible to arrive at a conclusive decision regarding their status.
-
2023 (1) TMI 286 - PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
Seeking grant of Bail - illegally claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis of false invoices, without there being any actual physical receipt of goods - bogus and fake invoices - HELD THAT:- No blanket ban can be put on bail merely because a person has been accused of an economic offence. In the present matter, applicant is in custody since 01.12.2022. The report submitted by the prosecution demonstrates that investigation qua the accused already stands concluded. Prosecution has already recorded the statement of the concerned persons including the transporters. The relevant documents have been collected. The fact that custodial interrogation of the accused is not warranted is evident from the fact that the prosecution never moved any application for the same. Prosecution has opposed the bail application on the ground that there is likelihood that accused would try to influence the transporters, whose statements have been recorded. The bail cannot be refused merely on the apprehension that accused would try to influence the transporters, more so, when no grounds for further custodial detention are made out.
It is a settled law which has been reiterated by the Apex Court in number of judicial pronouncements that the purpose of custody of an accused is only to aid investigation. The custodial detention is not to be used as a tool for pre-trial punishment. Since, the custody of the accused is no longer required for aiding the investigation, therefore, no ground is made out for keeping him further detained in custody.
Since, the custody of the accused is no longer required for aiding the investigation, therefore, no ground is made out for keeping him further detained in custody - the applicant/accused Jagdish Rai Bansal is admitted to bail subject to conditions stipulated.
Bail application allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 242 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Detention of goods with vehicle - necessity of having TDS/e-way bill as the GST Council had exempted for carrying of e-way bill till 31.03.2018 - HELD THAT:- As far as requirement of eway bill/TDS is concerned, the matter is no more res integra and has already settled by Division Bench of this Court in case of M/S GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, M/S GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., M/S. RAS POLYTEX PVT. LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, M/S. GAURANG PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., M/S. ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LTD., M/S. NAVYUG AIRCONDITIONING AND M/S. PROACTIVE PLAST PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 02 OTHERS AND STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS [2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] followed by coordinate Bench of this Court in M/S H.B.L. POWER SYSTEMS LTD THRU AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN. SECY. DEPT OF TAX AND REGISTRATION AND ORS [2022 (8) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. The Division Bench of this Court has held that on the basis of instructions of GST Council the requirement of having e-way bill till 31.03.2018 was dispensed with - the order passed by the first appellate authority requiring the petitioner to have e-way/TDS bill when the vehicle was detained on 03.03.2018 does not hold good and the order dated 10.12.2021 is set-aside to that extent.
This Court finds that explanation furnished by the petitioner before the authorities as well as the first appellate authority was specific that it was used five to six times for transportation of raw material and it was not a finished product which was transported by the petitioner where requirement of new bags arises - the explanation afforded by the petitioner appeals to the Court and the finding recorded by the fist appellate authority does not hold any ground, in view of the said fact, the order passed by the first appellate authority in appeal is hereby set-aside.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 241 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - case of the petitioner is that before the goods were being transported e-way bill was generated on 13.03.2018 which was valid upto 15.03.2018; the goods were transported from Mohali to Ghaziabad and same were intercepted at Shamli on 13.03.2018 and seizure order was passed on the same day i.e. 13.03.2018 under Section 129 (1) of U.P. GST Act read with Section 20 of IGST Act - HELD THAT:- The requirement of e-way bill till 31.03.2018 was postponed by GST Council noticing the hardship faced by the assessees. The coordinate Bench of this Court in M/S H.B.L. POWER SYSTEMS LTD THRU AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN. SECY. DEPT OF TAX AND REGISTRATION AND ORS [2022 (8) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] relying upon the recommendation of GST Council had held that there was no requirement for e-way bill till 31.03.2018 - In the present case, as the goods were intercepted by the mobile squad on 13.03.2018, the recommendation of the GST Council is applicable and there is no requirement for e-way bill till 31.03.2018. Moreover, the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench is applicable and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit as given by the co-ordinate Bench in M/s H.B.L.Power Systems Ltd.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 240 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - evasion of tax - compoundable offences or not - Section(s) 132(1)(B) (C) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In present case, the petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2022, charge-sheet has been filed on 30.09.2022 and he has already deposited about 10 per cent of the amount of alleged evaded tax duty. In view thereof; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
The bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Khem Chand Thathera S/o Shri Nanagram Thathera shall be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that he shall comply with all the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 239 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Seeking permission for withdrawal of petition - Initiation of proceeding for alleged, willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order - seeking a direction by issuing writ arising of the criminal proceeding - HELD THAT:- This Court has perused the order passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 415 of 2018 and other analogous cases and Cont. Case (Cvl) No. 665 of 2019 and other analogous cases as also the order passed by the writ Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 14 of 2019 which is the subject matter of the instant contempt case wherefrom it is evident as under paragraph-4 thereof that the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2019 and the writ petitioner was directed to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer as and when called upon by him. The Senior Intelligence Officer was also directed not to arrest the writ petitioner on his first day of appearance and give him fair opportunity of hearing in the matter.
This Court has posed a question upon the learned counsel for the petitioner that when there is a specific direction passed by the writ court to the effect that there shall be no arrest on the first day of appearance and if the writ petitioner, namely, Nikit Mittal has not appeared before the concerned Officer, what action has been taken by the Senior Intelligence Officer for securing his appearance in order to proceed further in the proceeding which was the subject matter of the writ petition.
The instant case is dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, disposed of.
-
2023 (1) TMI 238 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- Issue raised in this writ petition is no more res integra as identical challenge has been gone into by this Court in several writ petitions including in M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-1) [2022 (7) TMI 82 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], where it was held that Though the lower appellate authority may be right in holding that while it may allow filing of an appeal beyond the limitation of three months for a further period of one month, therefore, by extension of limitation beyond the extended period of one month delay beyond the extended period of one month cannot be condoned, we are of the view that such a stand taken by respondent No.1 may adversely affect the petitioner.
It would be just and proper if respondent No.2 gives a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner since the matter pertains to cancellation of GST registration adversely effecting its business operations.
Matter remanded back to the 2nd respondent who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 237 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - service of notice - violation of statutory requirement of according hearing to the person provided or not - breach of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice which has been given to the petitioner is not in prescribed format as it is conspicuous by absence of the date and time on which the noticee was to appear for personal hearing. It is also clear from the prescribed format that the noticee has to be afforded opportunity of personal hearing and for that purpose he has to be informed in advance, the date and time on which hearing will take place. Since in the instant case, the show cause notice does not mention the date and time appointed for personal hearing, therefore, in our opinion, the proceedings held in pursuance thereof are rendered illegal, void and a nullity in the eyes of law.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 236 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Lifting of provisional attachment of Bank Accounts of petitioner - section 83 of GST Act - HELD THAT:- Noticing the factum of attachment of the bank accounts during the search proceeding, without any subjective satisfaction and the issue of passing of provisional order under section 83 before even such proceedings were completed, without there being any pendency of the proceedings, this court in the final hearing can adjudicate all these issues, but the court needs to indulge at this stage.
On filing an Undertaking before this Court of maintaining the balance of Rs.5,88,153/- in savings account No.919010045294509 and balance of Rs.88,843/- in current account No.918020097072117 of Axis Bank, Bapunagar, the petitioner is permitted to operate his current account No.918020097072117 of Axis Bank, Bapunagar, upon the attachment being lifted on his current account - Let the scrutiny be completed by 11/01/2023. The matter shall be heard on that day finally.
-
2023 (1) TMI 235 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of goods - whether the provisional attachment has ceased as one year from the date of the order had elapsed? - HELD THAT:- There is no disputation or contestation that the provisional attachment is dated 04.11.2019 and one year therefrom elapsed on 04.11.2020. Therefore by operation of law i.e., sub-section (2) of Section 83 of C-GST Act, provisional attachment which has been assailed in the captioned writ petition has ceased to have effect. Therefore the impugned order which has been assailed has already perished by operation of Statute. This means that acceding to the prayer in captioned writ petition is only stating the obvious i.e., stating the obtaining legal consequence of operation of Statute.
This position is reiterated and it is made clear that the impugned order has ceased to have effect on and from 04.11.2020 - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 234 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods alongwith conveyance - auction of the goods which are of perishable in nature - HELD THAT:- On noticing withdrawal of earlier petition in M/S. MEHTA ENTERPRISE THROUGH ITS PROP. NIRAV VIJAYKUMAR MEHTA VERUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2023 (1) TMI 50 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] for taking legal recourse in accordance with law, this petition is ordinarily not to be entertained, however, a new cause has arisen of receipt of notice of auction and hence, when the approach of respondent is also equitious and balanced, we would avail an opportunity to both the sides with limited protection to the petitioner.
Let an appeal be preferred within a period of three days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Once willingness of making the bare minimum deposit as required under the law is shown, for release of goods, the authority concerned shall decide such interim release within a period of one week. Till then, no auction shall take place. Entire appeal shall be decided within a period of eight weeks by the respondent.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 233 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - availment of input tax credits completely in breach of the provisions of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering that the matter is still under preliminary investigation and as the opinion has not been formed yet by the authorised officer whether to arrest the applicants or not, interest of justice would be subserved if a direction is issued to the applicants to cooperate - In case, if the Investigating Officer wants to effect the arrest if he feels that arrest is imperative in the wake of the reasons recorded by him, he may effect the arrest after giving 72 hours notice in advance to the applicants in the peculiar facts of this case.
The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of with a direction to the applicants to co-operate.
....
|
