|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 168 Records
-
2023 (1) TMI 731 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking reopening of portal to file TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 - Transition of unutilized credit in respect of Input Service Distribution (ISD) - HELD THAT:- Since this position was recognized, the prayers made in the writ petition were allowed, not as a matter of concession, but because of the position of law as declared by the judgments referred to in paragraph 4 of M/S HERO MOTOCORP LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (9) TMI 1409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that the issue stands covered by UNICHEM LABORATORIES LIMITED, CASTROL INDIA LIMITED AND ANR. NIVEA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PFIZER LIMITED AND SIEMENS HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS [2022 (9) TMI 258 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (8) TMI 1282 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and M/S BODAL CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2022 (2) TMI 846 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that The Hon’ble Apex Court, to aid the assessees to overcome the procedural/technical hurdles, by the order UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS FILCO TRADE CENTRE PVT. LTD. & ANR. [2022 (7) TMI 1232 - SC ORDER] directed the GST Network to open the common portal to file/rectify TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a period of two months, i.e., with effect from 1st September, 2022 to 31st October, 2022 to enable the different private parties to avail Transitional Credit.
Since, we were in agreement with the ratio of those judgments, we allowed the relief prayed for by the writ petitioner.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 679 - SC ORDER
Constitutional Validity of Sr. No. 9(ii) of the N/N. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - N/N. 10/2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Levy of IGST - services by way of transportation of goods by vessel from a place outside India - Scope of 'Importer' within meaning of Section 2(26) of the Custom Act, 1962 - recipient of service - HELD THAT:- In view of the decision of this Court in UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS M/S MOHIT MINERALS PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR [2022 (5) TMI 968 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that The impugned levy imposed on the ‘service’ aspect of the transaction is in violation of the principle of ‘composite supply’ enshrined under Section 2(30) read with Section 8 of the CGST Act. Since the Indian importer is liable to pay IGST on the ‘composite supply’, comprising of supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance, etc. in a CIF contract, a separate levy on the Indian importer for the ‘supply of services’ by the shipping line would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act, the petition stands dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 678 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Requirement to furnish acknowledgement of online filing of the appeal - whether due to the mistake of the department or the technical glitch in software when an appeal of assessee is not reflected on the portal, whether the authorities can deny to entertain the appeal filed offline on technical grounds?
HELD THAT:- This is a case where the Taxing Authorities of the State are contesting tooth and nail up till this Court preventing the assessee from consideration of his appeal offline though, prima facie, it is clear that the appeal filed by the assessee is not being reflected on the web-portal of the department. The department is trying to justify its stand that an appeal will lie against a summary order passed in DRC-07 under Rule 142(5) of the Rules and not against the original order, which was passed under Section 74 of the Act - Section 107 of the Act of 2017, which provides for appeal against the adjudication order, clearly states that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Service Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority. The legislature has not put any embargo upon filing of an appeal before the Appellate Authority by a person aggrieved, against any order.
There is absolute clarity by the legislature as to the notification which has to be published by the State Government in the official gazette. Once no such notification has been issued, it would be presumed that other mode of filing the appeal would be offline - this Court finds that the taxing authorities cannot stop any assessee from claiming his statutory right, as provided under this Act in the garb of technicality.
The correspondence dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 is hereby set-aside. The Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeals)-1, Commercial Tax, Kanpur, is hereby directed to consider the appeal of the assessee filed offline strictly in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him - Petition allowed in part.
-
2023 (1) TMI 677 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of SCN - It is the specific case of writ petitioner that an audit under Section 65 of C-G & ST and proceedings pursuant to a SCN under Section 74 read with Rule 142 (1) of CG & ST Rules thereunder cannot proceed simultaneously - HELD THAT:- The inspection was on 16.03.2020 and the first impugned notice was issued on 30.08.2022 this being a notice qua audit under Section 65 of TN-G & ST Act , the SCN dated 18.10.2022 was issued thereafter. Therefore, the SCN qua Section 74 of C-G & ST Act is post notice for audit under Section 65. This by itself douses the primary argument of the writ petitioner.
It is well open to the writ petitioner to make it clear that the documents have already been submitted and that the same has been articulated/captured in the show cause notice itself.
There is nothing to demonstrate that when the audit under Section 65 has been kick started by way of a notice, show cause notice under section 74 is impermissible. Therefore, it is not necessary to even dilate on the principles governing interference by a writ Court qua show cause notice - Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of accumulated ITC - inverted tax structure - Right to file an appeal - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The 'three respondents' are collectively referred to as 'State' or 'Revenue'. Revenue certainly has a right to file an appeal under Section 112 of C-G & ST Act as right of appeal is a statutory right. This writ Court is informed without any disputation or contestation by both sides that Tribunal qua Section 112 of C-G & ST Act is yet to be constituted. This means that it is open to State to file a writ petition in this Court assailing aforementioned two orders of Appellate Authority.
This Court is informed that the limitation i.e., prescribed period of limitation qua appeal to Tribunal under Section 112 of C-G & ST Act is six months from the date of the order of Appellate Authority. That six months in the case on hand is yet to elapse but it is in the anvil - A careful perusal of this Order and more particularly paragraph 2 of this Order and to state with greater specificity paragraph 2(b) (i) & (ii) of this Order shows that later of two dates can be taken into account for arriving at the reckoning date. As this Order is not under challenge before this Writ Court, the questions as to whether this Order will apply, whether it would pass muster qua Rule making powers under parent Statute and whether the Revenue has to file a writ petition within prescribed time (limitation).
It is deemed appropriate to direct the first respondent to take up the representations dated 14.11.2022 and consider the same on merits after eight weeks from today i.e., after 10.03.2023 - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 675 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - alleged tax evasion already been deposited with the revenue by the recipient(s) - HELD THAT:- In present case, the petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2022, investigation as against him is complete, the amount of alleged tax evasion has already been deposited with the revenue by the recipient(s).
The bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-Vikas Bajoria S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Bajoria 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.
-
2023 (1) TMI 633 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of mandamus commanding to respondents authorities to not to compel the petitioner from depositing further amount in pursuance to the allotment letter - seeking grant of mandamus commanding to respondents authorities to issue fresh allotment letter after removing the discrepancy in the allotment letter dated 277.2021 and further direction be issued to Mandi Samiti NOIDA to accept the premium amount in easy installment - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the shop in question has been allotted in favour of the petitioner in an open auction wherein Rs.78.78/- lacs has been offered by the petitioner on its own. After acceptance of the bid of the petitioner as highest bid in the open auction, it is not permissible for the petitioner to challenge the premium, which is 50% to the total bid amount. The consequential charges of 18% GST on the premium amount (which is 50% of the total bid amount as per the offer of the petitioner) also cannot be challenged. As regard the user charges, the same has been demanded as per the terms of the same agreement signed by the petitioner. It is not open for the petitioner to challenge the terms and conditions of the agreement signed by it - Even otherwise, the agreement signed by the petitioner has not been brought on record.
This not a fit case for grant of mandamus - petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 632 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Classification of services - rate of GST - project management consultancy services - classifiable under SI No. 24(ii) of heading 9986 of the Rate Notification as Support services to exploration, mining or drilling of petroleum crude or natural gas or both under SAC 998621 and attracts GST @ 12% in terms of Si. No. 24(ii) of Rate Notification or classifiable under SI No. 21(ia) of heading 9983 of the Rate Notification as Other professional, technical and business services relating to exploration, mining or drilling of petroleum crude or natural gas or both and attracts GST @ 12% in terms of SI. No. 21 (ia) of Rate Notification?
HELD THAT:- On perusal of the meaning of the term “mining”, it is observed that, in common parlance, mining is construed as digging up of earth for extracting something valuables. It is further observed from the notification entry under SI. No. 24 (ii) that the phrase support services and the phrase mining of petroleum crude or natural gas or both have been connected with the word “to”, which has been interpreted and elaborated by the Appellant under their submissions made. In this regard, the Appellant have interpreted that the meaning of the term “to” should be construed as “towards” or “concerned”. Here also, we tend to agree with the interpretation and meaning drawn in respect of the word “to” on the basis of the dictionary meaning of the said word. Now, after having drawn the interpretation and meaning of the aforesaid words and phrases, we proceed to interpret the scope of the pertinent entry, i.e., entry under SI. No. 24 (ii) of the Rate Notification. On bare perusal of the said entry and on application of the fundamental principle of literal rule of interpretation, it is observed that the said entry covers only such activities or services which are used directly in the mining operations as understood by the dictionary meaning of the term “mining” which essentially entails the excavation of the land or sea to extract the valuable substances therefrom - it is the services provided by the EPC company who are undertaking the actual infrastructural work for increasing the production capacity of their client, VL, would be classified under the entry at SI. No. 24(ii) of the Rate Notification, and not the Project Management Consultancy services provided by the Appellant which are not directly concerned with the mining operation.
The services covered under the SAC 998341 are essentially related to the survey and exploration of the mineral deposits and the study of their properties, which is certainly not the case with the impugned services which are in the nature of project management and supervision, and hence the contention put forth by the Appellant are devoid of any merit and cannot be accepted. It is also pertinent to mention that the CBIC Circular No. 114/33/2019-GST dated October 11, 2019 clearly specified that the scope of the entry at Sr. No. 21 (ia) under heading 9983 of Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 inserted with effect from 1st October 2019 vide Notification No. 20/2019- CT(R) dated 30.09 .2019 shall be governed by the explanatory notes to service codes 998341 and 998343 of the Scheme of Classification of Services. Thus, it is concluded that as per the explanatory note, the impugned services do not merit classification under SAC 998341.
The impugned services provided by the Appellant through their professionals are in the nature of professional and technical services as the said impugned services provided by them in deed require technically qualified and trained professionals and staffs. Thus, the impugned services provided by the Appellant will merit classification under SAC 998349 bearing description “Other technical and scientific services nowhere else classified, and accordingly merit entry at item (ii) of SI. No. 21 of the Rate Notification bearing the description Other professional; technical and business services other than (i) and (ia) above and serial number 38 below, attracting GST at the rate of 18% (CGST @9%+SGST @9%).
-
2023 (1) TMI 631 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Classification of supply - rate of GST - execution of works contract service at Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project - Applicability of S.No vi (or) vii of Notification No.24/2017 dated 21.09.2017 attracting GST@12% or 18%? - HELD THAT:- From a joint reading of the MOA of NPCIL and the certificate dt.21.07.2022, it is evident that the works relating to construction of residential quarters are exclusively meant for use of the employees of NPCIL at Kundankulam Project and acquiring such buildings are objectives incidental or ancillary to attainment of the main object of NPCIL, a government entity - the AAR had held that in the absence of substantiation with regard to the fulfillment of the condition that the services were procured by NPCIL, a Government Entity, in relation to the work entrusted to them by the Central government, the concessional rate provided was not available to them. The appellant, through the MOA and the certification from NPCIL has established that the residential quarters constructed at Anuvijay township were meant exclusively for the employees and that as per the MOA, one of the Objects incidental to attainment of the main objects, provide NPCIL to acquire apartments as seen expedient, necessary or convenient to the Company for the purposes of its main object/business.
The condition that the services so procured by the Government entity, in this case, NPCIL, is in relation to the work entrusted to it and therefore, the appellant are/were eligible for the concessional rate of tax @6% of CGST plus 6%of SGST as per entry 3(vi) of Notification No. 11/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) read with the corresponding Notification under TNGSTA for the period upto 31.12.2021.
-
2023 (1) TMI 630 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
Benefit of concessional rate of GST - works contract service rendered in relation to laying of pipelines for water projects supplied to PHED Rajasthan - amendment carried out vide Notification 15/2021 dated on 18.11.2021 - HELD THAT:- The applicant was awarded a work contract in relating to laying of pipelines for water projects. The contract price was inclusive of all taxes (service tax/VAT/CST etc). With the implementation of GST from 1st July 2017, the cost of all materials and service increased drastically due to applicability of GST on the works contract service in relation to water projects. The same projects were executing since introduction of GST i.e. w.e.f 01.7.2017 and paying GST/ submitting GST returns since 1.7.2017 on these supply.
As per Section 95 of CGST Act, 2017; this authority shall decide on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, by the applicant and “Authority” means the Authority for Advance Ruling, constituted under Section 96. Thus Section 95 allows this authority only to decide on matters or on questions in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant i.e. in the subject case this application can be entertained only if the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant - this authority is constituted to decide on matters or questions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
It is very much clear that the scope of the ruling for Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) is limited to the transactions being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken on the matters which are not sorted out. In the instant case, as already narrated, the application seeking advance ruling was filed on 11.03.2022 before the RAAR with respect to supplies already being undertaken, GST being paid and Monthly returns already being submitted.
-
2023 (1) TMI 581 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - time limitation - constitutional validity of Rule 117 of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - authorisation of rule-making authority to prescribe a time limit within which such FORM GST TRAN-1 is to be filed in order to claim such input tax credit (ITC) - transitional credit - HELD THAT:- As per the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner the writ petition has become infructuous. The petitioner has already filed revised TRAN-I during window period granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another versus Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and another [2022 (7) TMI 1232 - SC ORDER].
Having regard to the fact that the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and another, writ petition is disposed of.
-
2023 (1) TMI 580 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Attachment of Bank account of petitioner - Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. JAYCHEM ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, NAGPUR ZONAL UNIT & ORS. [2021 (7) TMI 430 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] dealt with a challenge to an action taken under Section 83 of CGST Act, where it was held that Since the petitioner has not taken to recourse to subrule (5) of Rule 159 of the said Rules, we decline interference at this stage. However, we grant the petitioner a week’s time to approach the Additional Director General under the said provision and if such an approach is made, a reasoned order shall be passed after extending an opportunity of hearing.
We find no reason, nor we are shown any, as to why we should not take the same view as taken in the case of Jaychem Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. and ask the Petitioner to approach the concerned authority under Rule 159 (5) of the GST Rules for revocation of the attachment - The contention of the Petitioner that the authority will not be able to decide the issue of jurisdiction is not correct as if the Petitioner demonstrates that the action taken under Section 83 of the Act is not proper in law and on facts, the concerned Authority can only release the attachment as per the said provision.
The grievance of the Petitioner that the bank account has remained attached for a long period of time, is to be noted but partially it is the Petitioner to blame for not taking recourse to Rule 159(5) of the Rules early - Be that as it may, since the bank account is attached in April 2022, we direct if the Petitioner approaches the authority under Rule 159 (5) of the Rules within one week, the concerned Authority will make an endeavour to take a decision thereupon as per law - petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 579 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - fair opportunity of hearing not provided - ex-parte order - HELD THAT:- This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, it is opined that the order is bad in law. This is for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences.
All issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with, even if the proceedings were ex parte in nature.
Impugned order set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 578 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - case is that no notice of hearing before passing the impugned order was issued to or received by the petitioning assessee - HELD THAT:- Since the order impugned dated May 25, 2022 was founded on the basis that the assessee had due notice and knowledge of dates of hearing fixed but the assessee had failed to be represented in course thereof, and it now appears that the assessee may not have received any of the three notices said to have been issued by email in April, 2022, the order impugned may not have any legs to stand on. The Department maintains that the email address to which the three notices of April, 2022 were sent was furnished by an authorised representative of the assessee, but there is no document to indicate the same and it is submitted on behalf of the Department that such information was furnished verbally.
The affidavit-in-reply filed by the assessee has robustly denied that the relevant email address to which the three notices of April, 2022 were issued belonged to the assesse or that such address had been furnished by any authorised officer of the assesse. It is apparent that the Department has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the notices for hearing had been served on the assessee for the assessee to be penalised for not availing of the opportunity of hearing.
The order impugned dated May 25, 2022 was passed without hearing the assessee and without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Since the nature of the order was such that the assessee’s participation was necessary prior to the same being made, the order impugned dated May 25, 2022 is set aside and the position is set back to the stage of the show-cause notice - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 577 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
Scope of Advance Ruling application - Classification of supply - supply of goods or supply of services - rate of GST - supply of food and beverages by the eating joints - Dine In - Take Away - Delivery - HELD THAT:- The applicant filed their application before the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling (RAAR) on 17.03.20221.e. much later from the discharging his GST liability on restaurant services supplied by him. The clarification vides Circular No. 164 /20 /2021-GST dated 6.10.2021has already been issued by the Government and Notification No. 11/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended is very much clear on the issue. The applicant is well awared about the notification and circular and discharging his tax liability in accordance to them - applicant motto is to find out whether the mechanism opted by him for payment of GST on said service is right or wrong, which is against the spirit of advance ruling.
The scope of the ruling for Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) is limited to the transactions being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken on the matters which are not sorted out - In the instant case, the application seeking advance ruling was filed on 17.03.2022 before the RAAR with respect to supplies already being undertaken, GST being paid and GST returns has been submitted. Hence, the case is out of the purview of the Advance Ruling.
-
2023 (1) TMI 576 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH
Exemption from GST - pure services or not - Project Development Service provided by the applicant to the recipient under the Contract from District Urban Development Agency which is District Level Agency of State Urban Development Agency (SUDA) and the Project Management Consultancy services under the Contract for PMAY - activity in relation to function entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality under Article 243G or Article 243 W respectively, of the Constitution of India or not? - applicability of serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June, 2017, as amended (S. No. 3A) by Notification No. 2/2018- Central Tax (Rate) dated 25 January, 2018 issued under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) or not - HELD THAT:- The District Urban Development Agency is subordinate district level office of SUDA as such, DUDA also falls under Government category. As per the organizational structure of DUDA as available on the website upsuda.org, the District Magistrate of the district concerned will be the ex-officio chairman of DUDA. Project director and project officers are also appointed by the U.P. government. DUDA utilizes the fund which is released by the SUDA - Further, as per website of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Housing for All (Urban), Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the PMAY is a Scheme to provide central assistance to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and other implementing agencies through States/UTs for Rehabilitation of existing slum dwellers using their land as a resource through private, participation, and affordable Housing in Partnership. As per the details available on website SUDA is the state level nodal agency for PMAY(U) in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
Functions entrusted to Panchayats/Municipalities - HELD THAT:- The Consultancy services rendered by the Applicant under the contract with DUDA, and for PMAY are in relation to functions entrusted to Municipalities/Panchayats under Article 243W / 243G of the Constitution of India.
Whether such services provided by the Applicant would qualify as Pure services? - HELD THAT:- The services mentioned in the contract would qualify as Pure Service (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods) as provided in serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June. 2017 issued under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST') and corresponding Notifications No. KA.N.I.-2-843/X1- 9 (47) / 17-UP. Act-1 - 2017 - Order - (10) - 2017 Lucknow, dated June 30, 2017 issued under Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Thus, the Services rendered by the appellant to the State Urban Development Agency, Uttar Pradesh (SUDA), and for PMAY are in relation to functions entrusted to Municipalities under Article 243 W and to Panchayats under Article 243G of the Constitution of India and such services would qualify as Pure Service (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods).
-
2023 (1) TMI 559 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of CGST - Section 54 of CGST Act - Export of Goods - they did not have Letter of Undertaking and the refund sought for is qua zero rated sales made to overseas purchases (exports) - HELD THAT:- It will suffice to say that the aforementioned refund application dated 01.06.2019 was followed by as many as four reminders dated 19.07.2019, 29.07.2019, 05.12.2019 and 31.10.2022. It is rather intriguing that a simple refund application under Section 54 Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 has been kept pending for such length of time.
The captioned writ petition is disposed of with a directive to the sole respondent to consider, process and make orders in the refund application of writ petitioner dated 01.06.2019 as expeditiously as the business of the sole respondent would permit and in any event within four weeks from today i.e., on or before 10.02.2023.
-
2023 (1) TMI 539 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - evasion of tax by wrongly utilization of input Tax Credit for disposal of out tax liabilities without actual payment of tax, resulting into loss of huge revenue to the State exchequer - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, custody period of the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs.9,99,480/- as tax under the GST Act vide intimation dated 14/18.10.2022 (Annexure P-5) in terms of notice served upon him by the Excise and Taxation Department, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.
The present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Bajrang Lal Sharma, is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing his bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
-
2023 (1) TMI 501 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy as available under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - invocation of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar if there is violation of principles of natural justice. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the appellant had filed reply or not, it is evident that the appellant had prayed for a personal hearing, which was, admittedly, not granted to the appellant - it will not be equitable to relegate the appellant to avail alternative remedy.
It is observed that at the time of grant of personal hearing, the appellant would be at liberty to press the contention that notice dated 11.10.2021 is not a show-cause notice - the respondent shall pass appropriate orders after granting opportunity of hearing to the appellant within a period of 45 days from the date of hearing.
Application disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 500 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Direction to allow the operation of the bank account against the action taken by the Respondents under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- There is, therefore, no reason why we should not take the similar view as taken in the M/S. JAYCHEM ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, NAGPUR ZONAL UNIT & ORS. [2021 (7) TMI 430 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and ask the Petitioner to approach the concerned authority under Rule 159 (5) of the GST Rules for revocation of the attachment. The contention of the Petitioner that the authority will not be able to decide whether it has jurisdiction is not correct and it is not the law that the moment an issue of jurisdiction is raised, the authority is rendered powerless. There is, therefore, no reason to take a different view than the one taken in Jaychem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
The grievance of the Petitioner that the bank account has remained attached for a long period of time, is to be noted but partially it is the Petitioner to blame for not taking recourse to Rule 159(5) of the Rules.
Petition disposed off.
|
