|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 154 Records
-
2020 (7) TMI 614 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Constitutionality and legality of National Anti-Profiteering Authority as well as Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules 122, 126, 127 and 133 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules - HELD THAT:- Though learned counsel for respondent no1 and 3 objects to the grant of instalments to the petitioner, yet this Court keeping in view the COVID-19 pandemic situation, directs the petitioner to deposit the principal profiteered amount i.e. ₹ 75,08,64,019/- in six equated monthly instalments commencing 15th August, 2020.
List the matter on 24th August, 2020 along with other connected matters.
-
2020 (7) TMI 613 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - appealable order - Refund of ITC accumulated during export - CBIC’s Circular No. 135/05.2020 dated 31st March, 2020 - HELD THAT:- Since, the order dated 22nd July, 2020 is an appealable order, the present writ petition and all pending applications are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The next date of hearing i.e. 11th August, 2020 stands cancelled.
-
2020 (7) TMI 612 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - cancellation of registration within stipulated time - petitioner did not appear in response to notice dated 06.09.2019 - CBIC order No.1 of 2020 Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in S.O. 2064 (E). dated 25.06.2020 - HELD THAT:- The Commercial Taxes and Registration Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 26.06.2020 consequent upon the above CBIT Notification.
This Writ Petition is allowed and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Assessing Authority by the cut-off date provided in the Notification seeking restoration of registration.
-
2020 (7) TMI 611 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Grant of refund along with interest - zero-rated supply of goods or services or both made by registered persons - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, till date the petitioner’s refund application dated 4th November, 2019 has not been processed. As neither any acknowledgment in FORM GST RFD-02 has been issued nor any deficiency memo has been issued in RFD-03 within time line of fifteen days, the refund application would be presumed to be complete in all respects in accordance with sub-rule (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 89 of CGST/DGST Rules - To allow the respondent to issue a deficiency memo today would amount to enabling the Respondent to process the refund application beyond the statutory timelines as provided under Rule 90 of the CGST Rules.
This Court is of the view that the respondent has lost the right to point out any deficiency, in the petitioner’s refund application, at this belated stage - this Court directs the respondent to pay to the petitioner the refund along with interest in accordance with law within two weeks.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 610 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty - Profiteering - HELD THAT:- The petitioner to deposit ₹ 63,14,901/- in this Court, within two weeks, as sought. The amount once deposited, to be kept in maximum interest bearing account awaiting the adjudication of the petition - Subject to the said deposit, the operation of the impugned order dated 19th March, 2020 is stayed.
List on on 24th August, 2020.
-
2020 (7) TMI 609 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods along with vehicle - Section 129 and Section 130 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- If the writ applicants are ready and willing to deposit the amount as stipulated above then we may consider releasing the goods as well as the conveyance with a further liberty to prefer appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, against the final order of confiscation having regard to the fact that the impugned order of confiscation was served upon the writ applicants in the month of March, 2020.
As the writ applicants are ready and willing to deposit the amount towards their liability, following order is passed:-
(i) The writ applicants shall deposit 50% of ₹ 36 Lac with the respondent No.3 and the balance amount of ₹ 18 Lac shall be paid by way of a Bank Guarantee of any nationalized bank. This shall be done within a period of two weeks from today.
(ii) If the amount of ₹ 36 Lac as referred to above is paid to the respondent No.3 then the conveyance as well as the goods shall be immediately released in favour of the writ applicants.
(iii) It shall be open for the writ applicants to prefer an appropriate appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act, if they intend to question the legality and validity of the order of confiscation passed in Form MOV-11. If any such appeal is preferred, the appellate authority shall hear the same in accordance with law.
(iv) We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We have passed this order keeping in mind that the goods are of perishable nature and are lying with the respondent No.3 since the month of September, 2019.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 608 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Vires of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Chapter XV of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - refund of profiteered amount - stay on recovery of balance amount - HELD THAT:- Granting an absolute stay with respect to the balance amount of ₹ 1.92 crores approx. may result in the flat buyers of the petitioner being left without a flat as well as without the benefit of the amounts which have already been ordered to be refunded to them. We are therefore not inclined to grant stay of recovery of the balance amount - eight weeks’ time granted to the petitioner to deposit the balance amount in this Court, if the proof of having already given benefit of an amount of ₹ 1.53 crores is furnished to the authority concerned.
However, there shall be a stay of proceedings for recovery of penalty.
List on on 24th August, 2020.
-
2020 (7) TMI 607 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods along with vehicle - Section 129 of the State Goods and Services Act, 2017 - evasion of tax or not - HELD THAT:- The counsel for the petitioner referring to Section 31 of CGST Act, 2017 and pointed out that as per the statute, an invoice could be issued either at the time of removal of goods or prior to the delivery of the goods and that the same is in consonance with the statute and hence, there is no cause for doubting any evasion of tax - Even though aforenoted contention is impressive, still, in view of the fact that an adjudication is already pending, it is only proper that a conclusion is not entered into at this juncture. For the present, a direction to complete the adjudication proceedings at the earliest would be sufficient in the instant case.
The respondent is directed to complete the adjudication proceedings in relation to Ext.P2 notice, within an outer time period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - petition disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 606 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - whether specific opportunity of personal hearing by mentioning the date was given? - Section 75(4) of Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that individual and separate personal hearing notice was not issued to the petitioner. On the ground of violation of statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the impugned orders have to be necessarily quashed.
The matters are remitted to the file of the respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (7) TMI 605 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision of own orders - several irregularities committed - tax on tax charged - HELD THAT:- The primary challenge raised by the writ petitioner has become infructuous in view of the passing of the revised orders. The petitioner has to train his guns only on the revised orders dated 03.07.2020. The said orders are appealable before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes (GST appeal), Madurai - The Appellate authority is directed to meticulously consider all the grounds of appeal to be raised by the petitioner and dispose of the appeal within a period of two months thereafter.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 579 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Attachment of Bank Account of petitioner - realisation of tax dues - case of petitioner is that due to present COVID-19 lockdown situation they are not able to Seattle the dues - HELD THAT:- It is stated that after making attachment, the first respondent has deducted a sum of ₹ 12,45,662/- from the bank account of the petitioner maintained in the second respondent Bank. Now, the petitioner wants to make the balance payment within 6 months.
This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:
(a) The petitioner shall pay the balance due amount within 6 months from today to the first respondent.
(b) If the petitioner fails to make full payment within the above stipulated period, it is open to the first respondent to resort to the remedy available under law to recover the said amount.
(c) In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner as stated supra, the first respondent is directed to de-freeze the bank account maintained by the petitioner in the second respondent bank forthwith.
(d) Insofar as the interest claim if any, it is open to the first respondent to issue fresh proceedings to the petitioner and if any such proceedings is issued, it is open to the petitioner to agitate against the same in the manner known to law.
-
2020 (7) TMI 578 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Demand of deposit of inadmissible input tax credit and file DRC-03 challan without initiating any adjudication process - On bhalf of revenue it is submitted that, the intent behind issuing the impugned letter dated 11th June, 2020 was to give an opportunity to the petitioner to come forward and either explain the transaction or deposit the tax with minimum interest and penalty under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act without going through the adjudication procedure. He clarifies that if after the investigation the respondent is not satisfied with the petitioner’s response, it shall follow the adjudication process for recovery.
HELD THAT:- The aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 is accepted by this Court and said respondents are held bound by the same. It is clarified, as a matter of abundant caution, that as the demand is disputed by the petitioner, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the said demand without following the adjudication process.
-
2020 (7) TMI 577 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Permission to withdraw petition - Cancellation of registration - order No.1 of 2020 Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in S.O. 2064 (E). dated 25.06.2020 - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (7) TMI 576 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration - CGST Act - non-filing of tax returns - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has filed a response dated 20.12.2018, which is referred to in the first paragraph of the impugned order itself. In conclusion, however, the respondent proceeds as though there was no response from the petitioner - thus, the contents of the response have not been taken into consideration at all.
The respondent is at liberty to initiate proceedings afresh, if at all, in accordance with law - petition allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 575 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Permisstion to withdraw petition - Grant of Bail - evasion of tax - offences under Section 132(1)(a) (b) ( c) (d) read with 132 (1) (i) (ii) of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Petition dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (7) TMI 549 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of efficacious alternative remedy of appeal - Refund of GST - rejection on the ground that it involves multiple tax periods - HELD THAT:- The present petition cannot be entertained when the petitioner has an equally alternate efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, GST - The present petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek its remedies against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority, along with an application for condonation of delay.
-
2020 (7) TMI 548 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Filing of GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 returns - rejection on the ground of the petitioner failing to produce any material/evidence to show that he had tried to submit the TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 within the stipulated period, the petitioner faced technical glitch.
HELD THAT:- This court is of the opinion that the respondent State authorities on the matter being referred to it by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation in WPT No.68 of 2018 should have considered the contentions of the petitioner raised by him in the said writ petition wherein itself he had categorically submitted that he has faced certain technical glitches while submitting TRAN-1 forms and the report in this regard was lodged on 26.12.2017and he has lodged complaint in this regard to the authorities well before the last date - In addition, he has also manually submitted the same on 18.01.2018 and had also sent it by registered post on the same day - All these aspects have not been considered or decided by the Commissioner in his order dated 14.09.2018 in the absence of any reasons and discussion by the Commissioner to the contentions and submissions of the petitioner, this court is of the view that the said order dated 14.09.2018 needs to be reconsidered.
Matter remanded back to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax for a reconsideration and for passing of a fresh order - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (7) TMI 547 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Transition of credit available under the VAT scheme to the GST portal - credit generated on the basis of incorrect ID, thereafter new registration granted - Section 139 of the PGST Act - HELD THAT:- The appropriate authority is directed to issue the necessary positive recommendations for migration/transition of credit available in the account of the R2 within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order and R2 will, in turn and within four weeks from receipt thereof, issue necessary intimation to the petitioner permitting it to access the portal and upload the forms.
Permission to deposit tax, penalty and interest u/s 50 of the PGST Act - HELD THAT:- Such a prayer is premature, since no assessment has been made in the present case. The petitioner may canvass the same, if so inclined, at the time of assessment and such prayer, if and when put forth, shall be considered by the Authorities in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 546 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - restaurant service supplied by the Respondent (Franchisee of M/s Subway Systems India Pvt Ltd.) - allegation that the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST not passed on by way of commensurate reduction of price - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- The profiteered amount is determined as ₹ 7,53,8541- as has been computed vide Annexure-13 of the DGAP’s Report dated 31.12.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules. Further, since the recipients of the benefit, as determined above are not identifiable, the Respondent is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 7,53,854/- in two equal parts of ₹ 3,76,927/- each in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the Rajasthan State Consumer Welfare Fund as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the CGST Rules 2017, along with interest payable @ 18% to be calculated from the dates on which the above amount was realized by the Respondent from his recipients till the date of its deposit. The above amount of ₹ 7,53,854/- shall be deposited, as specified above, within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order failing which it shall be recovered by the concerned CGST/SGST Commissioner.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied the benefit of tax reduction to the customers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and he has thus resorted to profiteering. Hence, he has committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable to penal action under the provisions of the above Section - Accordingly, a notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
-
2020 (7) TMI 528 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of efficacious remedy of appeal - Refund of GST - HELD THAT:- The present petition cannot be entertained when the petitioner has an equally alternate efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, GST - The present petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek its remedies against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority, along with an application for condonation of delay.
........
|
