|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 75 Records
-
2021 (5) TMI 453
Validity of assessment order - non-filing of GSTR-3B return - best judgment assessment under Section 62 of Telangana GST Act - HELD THAT:- Since the impugned order appears to be prima facie arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana GST Act, 2017, the impugned order is set aside - the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration; the 1st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner indicating the method of assessment under the best judgment assessment provision contained in Section 62 of the said Act; grant a personal hearing to the petitioner.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (5) TMI 449
Validity of assessment order - detention of goods - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has preferred this writ petition at interim stage when he was directed to show cause. Now final order has been passed and the said order is an appealable order under the statute. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition against show cause notice which has ultimately culminated in final order.
This writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy as is available in law.
-
2021 (5) TMI 420
Constitutional vires of Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act as also Rule 36(4) and 86A(1)(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Petitioner informed that there are other petitions pending adjudication before this Court, which raise issues, that are similar to the ones, that subsist in the instant writ petition.
Issue Notice.
-
2021 (5) TMI 419
Refund of input tax credit in respect of tax paid on purchase of goods utilized for export - Delay in receipt of Convertible foreign exchange - Petitioner also seeks a direction for payment of interest by the respondents - HELD THAT:- The petitioner’s claim for refund is pivoted on the provisions of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - A perusal of Section 8 of FEMA would show that, it calls upon the concerned person to take “reasonable steps” for realisation and repatriation of foreign exchange proceeds. In this case, the realisation and repatriation of foreign exchange involves proceeds from goods exported by the petitioner.
Furthermore, nothing has been shown by Mr. Singh, which would connect the provisions of Section 8 of the FEMA with Section 16 of the IGST Act.
The matter requires further examination - Issue notice.
-
2021 (5) TMI 418
Amendment to Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The letter of the Principal Commissioner, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, Bhasheerbagh, Hyderabad, is placed on record, which states that the amendment to Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 is made effective from 01.07.2017 as per the Finance Act, 2021.
Petition closed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 416
Levy of penalty u/s 122(2)(a) of CGST/APGST Act - notice under Section 73(1) within three months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) of Section 73, not issued, which is a requirement to impose penalty - HELD THAT:- Learned Counsel for Revenue submitted that he has no objection for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh assessment.
The matter is remitted back with a direction that a fresh assessment of tax and penalty shall be made by an authorized officer within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (5) TMI 409
Registration of fresh GST number of the Corporate Debtor - keeping the Corporate Debtor as a going concern - HELD THAT:- the RP is managing to run the business operation of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern as per Section 25(1) of IBC, which is the intent of the IB Code, so as to, keep the Corporate Debtor as going concern. In that event, when the Applicant has applied for registration of the GST of the Corporate Debtor, the GST Department supposed to register the same, instead of rejecting on a very flimsy ground ignoring the circular so issued by the Ministry of Finance on 23.03.2020.
On perusal of Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance on 23.03.2020, puts forth, that a suo-moto cancellation of GST registration on an earlier occasion by the GST department cannot be a ground to reject a fresh registration application by Company/Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP under IB Code - The above said circular dated 23.03.2020 is very clear on the issue, that the Corporate Debtor who, is undergoing CIRP is to be treated as distinct person of the Corporate Debtor and shall be liable to take a new registration in each State or Union Territory, where the Corporate Debtor was registered earlier. That apart, under Section 238 of the IB Code, clearly provide that, it will override the provision of other laws. Under such circumstances, the instant application is fit to be allowed.
Thus a suo-moto cancellation of GST registration on an earlier occasion by the GST department cannot be a ground to reject a fresh registration application by Company/Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP under IB Code - application allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 402
Seeking grant of Bail - different entities were clubbed to arrive at alleged amount of tax evasion of ₹ 6.31 crores - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant.
Taking into consideration that the applicant is in jail since 03.01.2021, investigation is over and the chargesheet is filed and that the present case is based on documentary evidence which may at best attract a punishment maximum up to 5 years, this court has decided to grant bail subject to conditions imposed - the applicant shall deposit an amount of ₹ 2,00,000/before the State Tax Officer and on depositing the aforesaid amount and producing appropriate document with regard to the depositing of the amount the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail - application allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 363
TRAN-1 credit denied - permission to file revised Form GST TRAN-1 manually or otherwise to carry forward credit - HELD THAT:- Following the decision in the case of [2021 (3) TMI 953 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the writ appeals preferred by the Union of India have been dismissed. However, as the period to file TRAN-1 has been expired on 30.08.2020, the respondents-assessees were granted time to file/revise TRAN-1 up to 31.03.2021, meaning thereby more than six month’s time was granted to the assessees therein.
Resultantly, while dismissing the present writ appeal, 30 days time is granted to the assessees to submit their GST TRAN-1 from today - Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 334
Grant of Bail - Constitutional Validity of section 132 (1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - power of arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 to be exercised only after the proper assessment/ determination of liability - de-attachment of Bank Accounts of petitioner - Fraudulent availment of ITC - HELD THAT:- The concerned officer has on the basis of the information given so far by the Petitioner is in the process of identifying other key conspirators/ master mind in the fraudulent availment of ITC, the concerned officer has recorded her reasons to believe that Petitioner has floated the two firms with the core objective to defraud the Government Ex-chequer; that Petitioner is only doing paper transactions involving 66 Crores of revenue which is huge by any standards and, has authorized his arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act. It is observed from the file notings that in furtherance of the on going investigation, the Revenue authorities are in the process of issuing summons to them and other key persons and coaccused to interrogate and record statements.
Having noted the all records and the scale of the alleged scam as well as the involvement of Petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the investigation at this stage,as that may tantamount to foreclosing the out-come to the investigation and would rather hamper the same - considering the magnitude and the scale of the alleged fraud involving public money and the critical stage, when investigation to get hold of the mastermind/ king pin and other key conspirators as well as the modus operandi is underway in which Petitioner through his sole proprietary concern, as well as through the Pvt. Limited Company, is alleged to be an active participant, at this stage, we are not inclined to indulge into the request for grant of bail under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Bail application dismissed - List the matter on 21st June, 2021 for further consideration.
-
2021 (5) TMI 333
Refund of CGST alongwith interest - period from April, 2020 to May, 2020 - HELD THAT:- The concerned respondent authorities are directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for refund as stated in the memo of this writ petition, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to the facts of the case.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (5) TMI 291
Grant of Bail - Validity of section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - power under Section 69 of the CST Act - arrest for alleged non-payment of GST and alleged illegal availment of ITC - HELD THAT:- The court having regard to factual position that the petitioners therein had responded to the summons and attended the dates, in the circumstances found that there could not have been justification to arrest the petitioner. Apart from that the court also found that there had not been any evidence about petitioner’s tampering with the documents or trying to influence the witnesses, observing that mere allegation is not sufficient. The court also went on to consider section 167 and had considered that under said provision a person cannot be kept in detention beyond a total period of 60 days where investigation relates to offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and that the Magistrate is authorized to detain beyond 15 days period if satisfied that the grounds are made out. However, he would not be able to authorize detention for a total period exceeding 60 days.
In the present matter, petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 28.04.2021 that he has already paid an amount of ₹ 45,00,000/- and that he would deposit ₹ 5,00,00,000/- under protest towards the alleged amount of tax evasion to demonstrate bona fides and that it would be subject to, adjudication of the amounts alleged and rights and remedies of the petitioner.
Bail application allowed subject to conditions imposed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 285
Validity of SCN - Carried forward Input Tax Credit in TRAN-1 from the era of Service Tax under Finance Act, 1994 to the era of GST - Eligible services or not - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the notice indicates that there was a verification of the Form TRAN-1 by the Audit Department of the GST and it was noticed that Cenvat credit had been availed on various services relating to investments in shares, debentures, mutual fund, securitization etc. The officer was of the opinion that since the receipts from the aforesaid avenues was exempted, the availment of the credit was itself not in order. The availment of Cenvat credit on services related to the provision of food, accommodation and travels was also questioned by the Officer on the ground that it is not eligible. The same goes with regard to the credit related to registry operations, custodial services, trustee for debenture and convertible note issues, securitization facilities as well as services related to parking and auction seized vehicle.
Thus the Officer classifies the aforesaid services as those in respect of which Cenvat credit ought not to have been transitioned in terms of Section 141 of the Act, per se. Let the petitioner put forth its objections in regard to the proposed reversal of carried-forward of input tax credit within a period of four weeks from today.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 268
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - fraudulent ITC - Fake invoices - evasion of GST - HELD THAT:- In this case when accused has already joined the investigation, he is not required for any custodial interrogation and on being inquired it is also submitted by the IO that as on today, there is no requirement of the arrest of the accused. There is no arrest since the recording of his statement on 15.12.2020. The firms which obtained the fraudulent ICT are not booked as they have deposited some of the amount. Any amount which is required to be deposited by the applicant is not disclosed. Applicant's involvement is not being the office bearer or the employee of these firms which have availed fraudulent ICT. There is no allegations from the side of the department of tampering of evidence or hampering the investigation by the accused after the grant of interim bail on 31.12.2020.
In these circumstances, it is directed that in the event of arrest one week prior notice shall be served upon the applicant/accused Nitin Singhania and he is directed to join the investigation as and when directed by the IO and shall not leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court. .
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (5) TMI 262
Violation of principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - Assessing Authority has noted certain discrepancies in the invoices accompanied by e-way bills - TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has replied to the Officer on 23.12.2020 specifically requiring a copy of the statement relied upon by the respondent. In the show cause notice, the Assessing Authority states that the supplier had admitted in his statement recorded by the Central GST Authorities, stating that they had neither received any inward nor engaged in outward supply. The officer thus proposes to arrive at a conclusion that the transaction was not genuine and the petitioner was engaging in bill trading. In response, the petitioner has specifically sought the statement recorded by the third party dealer reserving his right to cross examine the dealer as well as to file objections to the same. The impugned order has come to be passed without hearing the petitioner and admittedly, without supplying the statement relied upon by the Officer.
The conclusion in the assessment order, in fact, mentions the statement recorded by the third party dealer and in the light of the fact that this statement forms the basis of assessment, the petitioner ought to have been granted opportunity to peruse the statement and put forth its objections to the same. This has not been done, constitutes principles of violation of natural justice.
Let the statement and other particulars relied upon by the Officer in the impugned order of assessment be supplied to the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from today - Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (5) TMI 261
Rejection of request for carry forward of Input Tax Credit (ITC) into the Goods and Service Tax regime - argument by Revenue is that there had been several opportunities for rectification of the mistake as time had been extended till 31.03.20201 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the error is seen to be inadvertent, constituting a human error. The Revenue does not dispute this either. Moreover, the era of GST is nascent and thus a rigid view should not be taken in procedural matters such as the present one.
The petitioner is thus be permitted to transition the credit. After all, the consequence of such transition is only the availment of the credit and not the utilization itself, which is a matter of assessment and which can be looked into by the Assessing Officer at the appropriate stage - The third respondent, i.e., Deputy Commissioner of GST Policy, the Nodal Officer will enable the modification to be effected as well as the transition within a period of four (4) weeks from date of uploading of this order upon an application to be made by the petitioner in this regard - petition allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 259
Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - seeking to extend the date of payment towards full and final settlement of tax dues under the GST amnesty scheme - HELD THAT:- It is unfortunate that despite seeking adjournments on 04.02.2021 and 09.03.2021, on the ground that petitioner wishes to file a rejoinder on two occasions, no rejoinder has been filed till date - Cost not imposed.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 258
Levy of Central GST and State GST - use of motor cycles, as contract carriages - N/N. 17 of 2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Section 2(22), (25) and (26) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- The position in law, as laid down in Notification 12 of 2017, specifically Sl. No.15 (b), would apply in regard to the taxability of the transaction, and the petitioner as well as other similarly placed stakeholders appear to have acquiesced with this position. The apprehensions levelled by the petitioner to the effect that other operators are adopting differing positions in regard to the taxability of business receipts stands assuaged, the respondent stating that necessary action would be taken to ensure that there is compliance, across the board.
Petition closed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 227
Bail Application of co-accused - fake/inadmissible ITC on the strength of such fake invoices - issuance of goods less invoices - not habitual offenders - admittedly 57 days are already passed since arrest of the applicants/accused persons and as per information received from IO Sudhir, Department is still not in a position to precisely tell as to whether the complaint/charge-sheet would be filed within statutory period of 60 day - HELD THAT:- The fact that main accused Kabir Kumar is already released on bail, period of incarceration of both the accused persons coupled with the fact that the Department is still not forthcoming in filing complaint/charge-sheet in this case.
Both applicants/accused persons namely Manish and Vikas are admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of each with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 226
Bail application - issuance of bogus invoices without actually transferring the physical goods - prosecution under section 132(5) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This court is of considered view that the present accused does not deserves to be released on bail. This is a economic fraud going to the root of the economy as this Court does not see any justifiable ground for grant of bail. It is settled preposition of law that economic offences in itself are considered to be gravest offence against the society at large and hence are required to be treated differently in the matter of bail. It seems that the entire community would aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book as such offences affects the very fabric of democratic governance and probity in public life. Further if a murder committed in the heat of moment upon passing being aroused, the economic offence is supposed to be committed with cool calculation and deliberately with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence of the community.
A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.
The bail application moved by applicant/accused Anil Kumar Jain stands dismissed - Papers be tagged with the main case file.
|
