|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1693 Records
-
2020 (12) TMI 685 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - time limitation - main allegation of the petitioner is that prior to passing of the order of demand, no show cause notice was ever served upon the petitioner and in fact no order passed by the respondent no. 3 was also ever served upon the petitioner - HELD THAT:- In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, it is clear that show cause notice was never served upon the petitioner as well as the reasons for quantification of the demand has also never been served upon the petitioner. In view thereof, it is clear that the statutory provisions as well as the principles of natural justice have been clearly violated - Service of the show cause notice at a wrong E-mail address is neither contemplated under the Act nor can it be deemed to be a proper service under the Act. As no show cause notice has ever been served, the petitioner never had any occasion to file its reply and thereafter not serving a copy of the reasoned order quantifying the demand is clearly erroneous.
The present petition has been filed as the Tribunal contemplated under the GST Act has not been created and the petitioner argues that in the absence thereof he cannot be left remedy less, as such he approached this Court - the orders passed are wholly arbitrary and contrary to the manner of passing of the order, as prescribed under the Act. There is no hesitation in holding that the orders passed against the petitioner are completely in violation of principles of natural justice.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2020 (12) TMI 684 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Permission to file Form TRAN-1 in compliance of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - availment of Tansitional Credit in Electronic Credit Ledger - validity of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is liable to be disposed of in terms of the decision rendered by Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court Principal Seat at Jodhpur in OBELISK COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGY LLP, VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE [2019 (12) TMI 1162 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] where it was held that this Court cannot entertain such prayer and accordingly reject the same, however, considering the fact that the Union of India and the Finance Department have extended the period contemplated under Rule 1A of Rule 117 till 31st December, 2019.
Liberty granted to the petitioner to make an application before GST Council through Standing Counsel, who is further requested to hand over the same to the jurisdictional officer for forwarding the same to the GST Council to issue requisite certificate of recommendation alongwith requisite particulars, evidence and a certified copy of the order instantly and such decision be taken forthwith and if the petitioner’s assertion is found to be correct, the GST Council shall issue necessary recommendation to the Commissioner to enable the petitioner to get the benefit of CENVAT credit within the stipulated time as stipulated by the Union of India.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 683 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - petitioner’s appeal rejected on the ground that it is belated by four months and therefore beyond the maximum time permitted under Section 107 of the Act - HELD THAT:- On perusal of Annexure-E, it is seen that the Appellate Authority, the third respondent, has not considered the specific assertions of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the order dated 10.12.2018 until his banker informed him and immediately thereafter i.e., on 5.2.2019 the petitioner has deposited a part of the demand. If 05.02.2019 could be considered the date of communication, the appeal would be in time. These circumstances in the considered opinion of this Court had to receive the third respondent’s attention, and even mentioning 10.12.2018 as the date of communication in the appeal format had to be considered in the facts and circumstances.
This Court is of the considered view that Annexure-E which is rendered without considering these circumstances cannot stand the scrutiny in law especially given the fact that the Appellate Authority’s order results in denial of the right of appeal under the Act.
Petition allowed in part.
-
2020 (12) TMI 682 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appeal rejected on the ground that the appeal is filed beyond even the condonable period holding that the copy of the best Judgment order is served on the petitioner’s registered e-mail - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 107 of the Act is categorical that a person aggrieved by any decision or order under the Act may prefer an appeal to the prescribed authority within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person with a further condonable period of thirty days. It would therefore be necessary for the Appellate Authority, while dismissing an appeal on the ground that it is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed and the further condonable period, to decide on the limitation considering the circumstances relied upon by the parties to assert a particular date as the date of communication.
In the present case, the Department asserts the date of communication as 09.07.2019 where as the petitioner asserts as 7.11.2019. The impugned order does not indicate that the Appellate Authority has considered the controversy in this regard. The Appellate Authority, given the Scheme of the Act prescribing definite timelines for preferring an appeal and the lapse of right of appeal thereafter, would have to consider the circumstances asserted. It would be needless to observe that the Appellate Authority while considering the question of the date of communication as contemplated under Section 107 of the Act would also have to decide on the merits of the case.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 625 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - reason for detention was that the transportation of the goods was not supported by a valid e-way bill - HELD THAT:- The detention in question cannot be said to be unjustified.
It is directed that if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P3, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to clear the goods and the vehicle, and thereafter pass the final order under Section 129 of the Act
-
2020 (12) TMI 624 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Grant of regular bail - sections 132(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - mis-applying and mis-interpreting the exemption notifications - HELD THAT:- It appears that the applicant has taken benefit of the Notification, after intimating the Department vide communication dated 22.09.2017, which was acknowledged by the Department on 17.06.2020. It also appears that the returns were filed, which were also audited. Whether or not the registered trademark has been foregone and whether or not the applicant has mislead the authority would be a matter adjudication. The applicant is reported to have deposited a sum of ₹ 75 Lacs during the course of investigation - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the applicant.
The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail - Application allowed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 623 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Release of detained goods alongwith the truck - it is argued that the interpretation of Section 67(6) is not justified and is contrary to the provisions itself - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner is already availing a statutory alternative remedy, this Court refuses to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the observation that appellate authority may decide the pending appeal as expeditiously as possible.
Sri Amit Manohar states that the next date fixed in the appeal is 14th December, 2020 and in case the appeal is in order and in case the petitioner co-operates, the appeal will be decided on the next date fixed or within a week thereafter.
-
2020 (12) TMI 622 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund of ITC - petitioner submitted that the grievances ventilated in the petition about the non-acceptance of the refund claim for the period running from May, 2018 to September, 2018 does not remain in existence as the respondent has now accepted the refund application - HELD THAT:- The respondents are directed to decide the refund application as expeditiously as possible and practicable in accordance with law, rules, regulations and government policies applicable to the fact of the case.
Liberty is reserved with this petitioner to the effect that litigation can be initiated by this petitioner before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if the refund claim is not accepted by the respondent,.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 584 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of IGST alongwith the interest - export of 740 cartons of garments to West Midlands, United Kingdom - According to the petitioner, there still remains a balance of ₹ 1,11,254/- payable by the respondents towards refund of IGST - Board's Circular No.40/2018-Customs dated 24.10.2018 - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, wherein they have admitted that the non-credit of the balance amount of ₹ 1,11,254/- happened as a result of technical fault in the computer system maintained by the respondents. Referring to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have admitted their liability to refund of IGST amount to the petitioner, but have expressed their difficulty in refunding the amount, only due to the fact that the petitioner has not sought for refund by filing necessary Form in accordance with the Board's Circular No.40/2018-Customs, dated 24.10.2018.
The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions would submit that the petitioner is prepared to submit the Form in accordance with the Board's Circular No.40/2018-Customs dated 24.10.2018 to seek refund of a sum of ₹ 1,11,254/- payable to the petitioner towards IGST refund under the shipping bill No.773482 on 21.09.2018. For this, the learned standing counsel for the respondents has also not raised any serious objection.
This Court directs the petitioner to submit a Revised Refund Request Form as per the Board's Circular No. 40/2018-Customs dated 24.10.2018, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, seeking for refund of ₹ 1,11,254/- - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 582 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Refund of GST - petitioner submits that on account of inward supply of inverted rated inputs the petitioner was entitled to refund - period April 2018 to July 2018 - HELD THAT:- There are no hesitation in holding that in quasi judicial proceedings that too relating to financial adjudication, the proposed reasons for rejection should be specifically contained and informed to the assessee so as to enable him to give his reply in a conclusive and reasonable manner. The perusal of the show cause notice in the present case fall short of all the known principles of natural justice and no prudent man could have given reply to the kind of show cause notice, which was served upon the petitioner. For the sole reason that the order rejecting the claim is based upon a silent show cause notice, there are no hesitation in holding that the principles of natural justice have been violated while adjudication of refund claim of the petitioner.
The respondent no. 2 is directed to passed a fresh order on the application of the petitioner, for refund, already filed by the petitioner under Form RFD-01, after supplying all the requisite documents and the ground on which the department proposes to reject the application and after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law - petition allowed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 581 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - online submission of Form GST TRAN-1 within a specified period - HELD THAT:- Rule 117 of the C.G.S.T. prescribing time frame is in consonance with the provision of Section 140 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 as amended by the Finance Act 2020 (12 of 2020) with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017.
As jointly prayed by learned counsel for the parties, put up as a fresh case on 16th December, 2020.
-
2020 (12) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Attachment of Bank Account of petitioner - Cancellation of GST registration - Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- List on 8th January, 2021.
The respondents shall file their counter affidavits, if required, within two weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
-
2020 (12) TMI 579 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Seeking Direction to respondents to accept the request for access to GST portal enabling the petitioner to upload return for the periods from the implementation of GST - It is submitted that there is no proof that the GST portal of the petitioner has been blocked after 31.3.2018 - HELD THAT:- There is no force and merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. There is no proof that the petitioner had actually opted for the portal. The composition is not permitted as the portal only permits for filing of the GSTR 4 - There is no explanation as to how and in what manner the petitioner has not been able to open the portal nor any photo copy of the proof has been attached or the circumstances in which the returns could not have been accepted is not explained.
The contention of the petitioner is baseless, devoid of merit and no ground for interference is made out - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 578 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Grant of Regular Bail - wrongful availment and utilization of input tax credit - availment of input tax credit on the basis of the invoices / bills issued without supply of actual goods or services - offence under Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 132 of the CGST Act which is punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The modus operandi adopted by the petitioner is that he indulged in issuing GST invoices and e-way bills and passing on input tax credit to various customers without actual supply of goods. It is also specifically mentioned in the remand application that the registered office and also the factory of the petitioner are non-existent one. According to the respondent authorities, the bank has sold the unit of the Company by invoking the procedure laid down under SARFAESI Act. Both the registered office and the factory are found to be not in possession of the Company since 2016. The petitioner has filed irregular inward ITC credit of ₹ 5.46 crores and outward irregular ITC credit of ₹ 5.43 crores from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2020.
In the statement recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, the petitioner has admitted that presently there is no registered premises of the factory. The business is being run by him from the vehicle viz., Grey Colour Swift Dezire TS07 1667. He is also conducting business by using his laptop and mobile No.9493895762. He has answered that based on the invoices created in the laptop, he has raised documents like e-way bills using hotspot and transfer documents created through e-mail neerajkarande@godavariengg.com. He also answered that he will submit all the related documents like invoices, e-way bill after retrieval from his mail, as far as possible.
Due to ongoing investigation, the department could lay its hand on an amount of ₹ 42,90,133/- in the electronic credit ledger of the Company of the petitioner. Further, a provisional attachment order under Section 83 of CGST Act was issued to the banker of the Company. Steps have been undertaken to get the laptop recovered under panchanama dated 02.11.2020 to be forensically examined by CFSL, Hyderabad. Such forensic science laboratory report is awaited - Steps have been taken to prevent further loss to the Government exchequer by blocking the ITC credit under Rule 86A(1)(a) of the CGST Act as the competent authority i.e., the Additional Director General has accorded approval along with reasons to believe that the ITC has been fraudulently availed and is ineligible due to two counts i.e. the petitioner has availed credit on fake invoices obtained without supply of goods and Company of the petitioner not conducting business from its registered place.
There are several aspects to be investigated into by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. The modus operandi said to have been adopted by the petitioner in commission of offence is to be investigated into by the investigating officer. The GST amount involved for the operations carried out by him for the period from 01.7.2017 to 31.08.2020 is ₹ 10.89 crores. Admittedly, the investigation is pending - this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 528 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods alongwith the vehicle - Extension of validity of E-way bill - petitioner contends that the conveyance carrying the vehicles reached the place of destination on 1.1.2019 before the expiry of the validity of the e-way bills but the vehicles could not be unloaded on the same day and were being unloaded on 2.1.2019 - HELD THAT:- Where there is no dispute that the conveyance had reached the place of destination well within the expiry of e-way bills, and the conveyance was being unloaded without any further transit, this Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority should have considered the merits of the proceedings against the petitioners in the light of the provisions of Rule 138[10] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which prescribes the validity of an e-way bill with the extension of further period by eight hours after the expiry. The failure to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the provisions of Rule 138[10] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 has resulted in an improper and untenable order.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 487 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - Restaurant Services - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed on - contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of operating quick service restaurants under the brand name of “Mcdonalds” under a franchisee agreement with the multi-national company Mcdonalds India Private Limited. The Respondent is operating about 300 restaurants in the 10 States of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu and Telangana. He was selling 1844 products as on 15.11.2017 when the rate of GST on the restaurant services being provided by him was reduced from 18% to 5% by the Central and the State Governments vide Notification No. 26/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 with the stipulation that the Respondent would not be entitled to the benefit of ITC on the above service w.e.f. 15.11.2017. Accordingly, the Respondent was required to pass on the benefit of tax reduction to his recipients as per the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and its consequences if he did not pass on the benefit.
On the basis of the analysis of the details of the product-wise outward taxable supplies made during the period between 15.11.2017 to31.01.2018, the DGAP had found that the Respondent had increased the base prices of the items supplied by him to neutralise the effect of ITC of 9.11% which was not available to him after the rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017. The DGAP had compared the pre and post GST rate reduction average prices of the items sold during the period between 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018 and after taking into account the entire quantity of the products sold during the above period, he had found that the Respondent had increased the average output taxable value i.e. the base price by 10.45% to offset the denial of input tax credit of 9.11% as was evident from Annexure-36 of the Report. Therefore, the DGAP had concluded that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax from 18% to 5% as he had increased the base prices by more than 9.11% to 100.09% in respect of 1,730 items out of total 1,844 items i.e. 93.82% of the total items supplied by him after 15.11.2017.
The DGAP had also stated that on the basis of the pre and post reduction GST rates, the impact of the denial of ITC and the details of the outward supplies made during the period between 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018, as per the GSTR-I or GSTR-3B Returns of the Respondent, the amount of net higher sale realization due to increase in the base prices of the products, despite the reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 5%, with denial of ITC, the profiteered amount came to Rs. in respect of the above 10 States as per Annexures-37 of the Report. Accordingly, after careful consideration of the Report of the DGAP and the submissions of the Respondent, this Authority had held the Respondent liable for profiteering under Section 171 (1) of the above Act and directed him to deposit the profiteered amount vide order dated 16.11.2018.
The time limit prescribed under Rule 133 (1) is not mandatory and it is only directory. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent that Notification No. 31/2019-Central Tax dated 28 June 2019 which extended time from 3 months to 6 months by amending the Rule 133 (1) would become redundant is untenable.
Also, no elaborate mathematical calculations are required to be prescribed separately for passing on the benefit of tax reduction and computation of the profiteered amount. This Authority was under no obligation to provide the same to the Respondent. The Respondent cannot deny the benefit of tax reduction to his customers on the above ground and enrich himself at the expense of his buyers as Section 171 provides clear cut methodology and procedure to compute the benefit of tax reduction and the profiteered amount.
The Respondent cannot claim violation of Article 14 on the ground that he has not been allowed to include his costs in the prices on the date of reduction in the rate of tax as such a claim would be against the provisions of Section 171 (1). The Respondent had enough time from 01.07.2017 to 14.11.2017 to increase his prices due to increase in his cost however, sudden increase in his cost on 15.11.2017 is a deliberate attempt not to pass on the benefit of tax reduction and appropriate the amount of benefit. Therefore, the above contention of the Respondent is not maintainable.
There are several statutory bodies which exercise quasi-judicial functions but they are not required to be composed of Judicial Members. There is no Judicial Member in the SEBI which has been constituted under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Neither the statute nor any decision of the Court requires the SEBI to be composed of a Judicial Member simply because it also performs quasi-judicial functions under the Act apart from its other roles - the TRAI which also performs quasi-judicial functions has been constituted under the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act, 1997 but does not have a Judicial Member. Section 3 of the said Act provides for the composition of the Authority. Again, the Medical Council of India has been constituted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The various disciplinary powers which it exercises under the Act can be said to be quasi-judicial in nature but it does not require a Judicial Member in its Council. The constitution and composition of the Council is provided in Section 3 of the said Act. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has been constituted under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The ICAI also exercises quasi-judicial functions over its registered members and can pass orders which have far reaching consequences affecting the rights of Chartered Accountants but even its composition does not require a Judicial Member’s presence. Its composition is provided in Section 9(2) of the above Act and the same does not include a mandatory Judicial Member.
Similarly, the Assessing Officers, Commissioners of Appeal under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the CGST Act, 2017, the Authorities on Advance Rulings under both the above Acts and the Dispute Resolution Panel under the Income Tax Act, 1961 all perform quasi- judicial functions but there is no requirement that such persons who must be possessing either a law degree or have had judicial experience. Such a requirement is not only impractical but would also render several statutory authorities unworkable - it can be concluded that this Authority has not having replaced any Courts, cannot be equated to a Court or a Tribunal and hence the mandate of having a Judicial Member cannot be said to apply to this Authority.
The benefits of tax reduction and ITC are to be passed on by each registered person by commensurate reduction in prices on each supply to every recipient and this Authority is empowered to examine whether these benefits have been passed on or not. To assist this Authority while making such examination an investigating agency designated as the DGAP has been created under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 to conduct detailed investigation and submit Report to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) to determine whether the above benefits have been passed or not in terms of Section 171 (1) and Rule 133 (1) of the above Rules.
The Respondent has further stated that the DGAP has wrongly computed the amount of profiteering. The Respondent has computed the net incremental revenue as 9.43% on the Restaurant service by comparing the revenue at the pre rate change prices and the post rate change prices after reducing the incremental costs from it. In this regard it can be noted that in case the incremental revenue is taken to be 9.43% then it is more than the denial of ITC of 9.11% and hence the Respondent has profit margin of 0.32% as per his own admission which proves that he has profiteered to the extent of 0.32%. Therefore, the Respondent cannot claim that he was not required to pass on the benefit of tax reduction.
Power to frame methodology and procedure is generally and widely available to all the judicial, quasi-judicial and other statutory bodies and no favour has been shown to this Authority by granting it power to frame its own methodology and procedure under Rule 126. Such a power has been conferred on the GST Tribunal under Section 111 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Competition Commission under Section 36 of the Competition Act, 2002. This Authority has similarly framed its methodology and procedure under Rule 126 vide Notification dated 28.03.2018. The Respondent does not have the power of legislature to frame the methodology and procedure and hence any such methodology and procedure suggested by him cannot be accepted being illogical, arbitrary, inequitable and being ultra vires of Section 171 and Article 14 of the Constitution. The Respondent had wrongly claimed that he had passed on the benefit at the entity level whereas the evidence on record shows otherwise.
The Respondent is liable to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction from 18% to 5% with denial of benefit of ITC, as was notified by the Central and the State Governments vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 w.e.f. 15.11.2017. It is also established that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of above tax reduction to his customers in terms of Section 171 (1) w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018. On the basis of the pre rate reduction GST rate of 18% and the post rate reduction GST rate of 5% with denial of ITC of 9.11% of the turnover and the details of the product wise supplies made during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018, as have been supplied by the Respondent himself, the amount of net higher sales realization due to increase in the base prices of the impacted products after comparing the average pre and post rate reduction prices of the products, despite the reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 5% or the profiteered amount is determined as ₹ 7,49.27,786/- as per the provisions of Section 171(1) & (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied benefit of rate reduction to the buyers of his products 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 for violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018 and therefore, he is apparently liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 171 (3A) of the above Act. However, perusal of the provisions of Section 171 (3A) under which penalty has been prescribed for the above violation shows that it has been inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.01 2020 vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 and it was not in operation during the period from 15.11 2017 to 31.01.2018 when the Respondent had committed the above violation and hence, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - notice for imposition of penalty is not required to be issued to the Respondents.
-
2020 (12) TMI 485 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of the bank accounts - Section 83 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act - HELD THAT:- By way of an interim order, it is directed that the provisional attachment of the cash credit account referred to above maintained with the AMCO Bank, Ahmedabad, shall no longer operate. The provisional attachment is ordered to be lifted. The AMCO Bank shall permit the writ applicant to operate the Cash Credit Account.
So far as other two accounts maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd. are concerned, appropriate order shall be passed on the next date of hearing.
Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 23.12.2020. No further notice now be issued to the respondents as Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned AGP has already entered his appearance.
-
2020 (12) TMI 482 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - alternative remedy of petition - Assessment of GST - HELD THAT:- This Court disposes of the instant writ petition, with a direction to the writ petitioner, to, avail the statutory remedy of its appealing against the orders of assessment. Further more, it is also directed that the bank concerned shall forthwith release into the accounts of the statutory authority concerned, 10% of the disputed sums of tax. Further more, it is also directed that the writ petitioner shall deposit the entire quantum of admitted liabilities towards tax, before the statutory authority concerned, in contemporaneity, of, its maintaining the statutory appeal.
It is open for the writ petitioner, to, agitate before the statutory authority concerned, the validity of the order, if any, made orally or in writing, to the Bank concerned, and, wherethrough the bank(s) account of the writ petitioner stand(s) frozen, for therethroughs hence ensuring realizations of sums of tax determined against it, under the afore Annexures - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 476 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Status of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules - whether it is intra vires or it is ultra vires or if it could be read down which issue is engaging the attention of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS BRAND EQUITY TREATIES LIMITED AND ORS. ETC. ETC. [2020 (6) TMI 517 - SC ORDER]?
HELD THAT:- Let this group of matters be listed after the judgment of the Supreme court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS BRAND EQUITY TREATIES LIMITED AND ORS. ETC. ETC. [2020 (6) TMI 517 - SC ORDER] as also M/S SIDDHARTH ENTERPRISES THROUGH PARTNER MAHESH LILADHAR TIBDEWAL VERSUS THE NODAL OFFICER [2019 (9) TMI 319 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], upon appropriate application being filed by either of the parties.
-
2020 (12) TMI 453 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Sealing of residential premises and godown - HELD THAT:- It is agreed between the parties that the petitioner’s residence and godown shall be searched on 10th December, 2020 at 11:00 AM in presence of an authorized representative of the petitioner or the petitioner himself. - It is further agreed that after preparation of panchnama, the residential premises and godown shall be de-sealed and the possession of the same shall be handed back to the petitioner.
Petitioner shall continue to appear and cooperate in investigation as and when directed by the Deputy Director.
This Court directs that till the next date of hearing the petitioner shall not be arrested - List on 22nd December, 2020.
............
|
