|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 167 Records
-
2023 (1) TMI 1365 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Prayer to quash the cancellation of GST Registration order - fulfilment of dues under the GST Act pending - HELD THAT:- It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in VINOD KUMAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER UTTARAKHAND STATE GST AND OTHERS [2022 (7) TMI 128 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] wherein this Court has held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and, therefore, appeal u/s 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017 shall not lie to the Commissioner.
We dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the State Tax Officer, Rudrapur, Sector-2, Uttarakhand ventilating his grievances and if the petitioner pays dues under the GST Act pending against him, then his application for restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1364 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Levy of IGST - ocean freight for services supplied by a person located in non-taxable territory - constitutional validity of N/N. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (rate) dated 28th June and entry 10 of the N/N. 10/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28 June, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view of the judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd [2022 (5) TMI 968 - SUPREME COURT], the petitioner is not liable to pay IGST on ocean freight for services supplied by a person located in non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in India.
The impugned notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (rate) dated 28th June and entry 10 of the Notification 10/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28 June, 2017 are quashed as being ultra vires.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1361 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Irregular availment of input tax credit based upon fake and fraudulent invoices - Seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus in the nature of restraint order to respondent No. 3 to not to interfere with the liberty and peaceful life of the petitioner and not to issue further summons under the provisions of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C - HELD THAT:- No strong case is made out by the petitioner calling for interference to the summons issued as has been sought for. Nonetheless, from the materials placed, there appears to be documents which would reveal that the petitioner otherwise is a physically challenged person. Therefore, it would not be justified in the said circumstances expecting the petitioner to be subjected to interrogation on day-to-day basis which may cause great inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner.
Considering the statement of the learned counsel for the Department that there are around 151 taxpayers who are said to have involved in availing fraudulent passing on input tax credits, the investigation may take some time. That of the 151 taxpayers, the petitioner being consultant of 122 tax payers, his presence for investigation also would be required in respect of each of the tax payers case is concerned.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Transition of CENVAT credit under the new regime in terms of Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 - amount involved was more than Rs. 50 lakhs - whether the petitioner is entitled to settle the dispute under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 under the aforesaid category viz., “Investigation, enquiry or audit Category”? - HELD THAT:- The petitioner was barred from filing the application / declaration under the SVLDRS Scheme, 2019 in view of Section 125(1)(e) of The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. as there was no quantified. If indeed there was a quantification, a Show Cause Notice No.4/2020-(ADC) dated 19.02.2020 would have been issued to the petitioner within the period of 35 days from 14.01.2020 the date of the declaration filed by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1. On the date of hearing when the case was reserved for orders on 10.07.2023, the respondent has filed a copy of Order in Original No.24/2023-GST(ADC) dated 31.03.2023. wherein the demand proposed in SCN No.4/2020(ADC) dated 19.02.2020 has confined the demand.
The petitioner was not entitled to settle the dispute under the aforesaid scheme, although the Designated Committee of the 1st respondent has concluded that the Committee examined the case and found that an amount of Rs. 8,36,913/- was paid towards interest and the SVLDRS scheme does not allow the set off of interest against duty liability. Accordingly the Committee decided to accept only the pre deposit of duty of Rs. 20,76,274/- towards pre deposit.
The Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Win Power Engineering (P) Ltd., Represented by its Director T.K.Kumar Vs. The Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 [2022 (12) TMI 603 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held The question of issuing statement by the Committee under Section 127 read with Rule 6 of the SVLDRS Rules, 2019 would arise only where the application filed itself falls within the four corners of Section 124(1)(d) as extracted above. Only where there was quantification of tax or duty in arrears, the scheme was applicable.
There is no merits in this writ petition. The Writ Petition has to therefore fail and is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition accordingly, stands dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1350 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Requirement to make pre-deposit - bank account of petitioner is frozen - HELD THAT:- The Court directs that limited to the amount required for making the predeposit, one of the bank accounts of the Petitioner i.e. its account with State Bank of India (SBI) which stands attached in form of a letter dated 15th July, 2022 addressed to the Bank by the Additional CT and GST Officer, Keonjhar (Annexure-2) shall remain lifted.
In other words, the SBI will permit the Petitioner to operate the said bank account only for the purposes of withdrawing the pre-deposit amount and for nothing else. Once that withdrawal is done, the attachment of the said account will continue and will be subject to the further orders that may be passed by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
In explaining the delay in filing the appeal, it will be open to the Petitioner to cite the pendency of the present petition as the reason and that will be considered in accordance with law by the Appellate Authority. The Court clarifies that it has not expressed any view in the matter.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1339 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - obtaining such registration by fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts - HELD THAT:- Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act undoubtedly enables the proper officer to cancel the registration even with retrospective effect. However, it should be borne in mind that such cancellation may be effected under clause (e) only based on material supporting an inference that the registration was obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. In this case, the registration was obtained in the year 2019 and no material has been placed on record to support the inference that the registration was obtained in early 2019 by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Therefore, the impugned order calls for interference.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the first respondent. Consequently, the respondents are directed to restore the registration subject to the outcome of re-adjudication.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1329 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - HELD THAT:- The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy observing that the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek exclusion of time spent in prosecuting this petition.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1311 - COMMISSIONER OF GST (APPEALS), AHMEDABAD
Penalty imposed under clause (a) of Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - E-way bill not generated at the time of dispatch - huge difference in the value of goods declared in the Delivery Challans issued by the appellant - Stock transfer or goods removed to another person - HELD THAT:- The penalty imposed under clause (a) of Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for violation of provisions made under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and rules made thereunder. The appellant is a registered company and has a good reputation in the market of windmill. Further, events made for not following the provisions of GST Law are inadvertently and there is no mala fide intention of the appellant to evade payment of GST. Therefore, the various plea made by the appellant in respect of imposing a minor penalty for this bona fide mistake is genuine and proper.
The penalty imposed under clause (a) of Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by the adjudicating authority and calculating 200% of tax amount. The transaction in question is not attracting any tax liability as the same is stock transfer and goods removed under Delivery Challans. This action of the appellant is not attracting any tax liability under GST Law only procedures are prescribed for such transactions such as the issuance of a Delivery Challan for the movement of such goods and the issue of an e-way bill. As per the definition provided under section 2(47) of the said act prescribed such type of non-taxable supply also considered as 'exempt supply'. Therefore, the stock transfer of goods by the appellant is considered as exempted goods.
Any contravention of provisions made under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and rules made thereunder during the transit of goods, the same should be penalized under section 129 ibid. In present case it is undisputed facts that the E-way is not tendered by the transporter. The contention of the appellant in this regard is that there was glitch in GST E-way Portal hence E-way was not generated - the goods in question is non-taxable and as per Section 2(47) ibid , the goods which are non-taxable also considered as exempted supply hence penalty provision provided under section 129(1) ibid related to exempted goods, is applicable in the present case. Therefore, the Order for penalty under section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is amended and the penalty Rs. 25,000/- under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rs. 25,000/- under of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is imposed instead of Penalty of Rs. 42,22,604/- each under imposed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1265 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Request for refund rejected on the ground of time limitation - Availment of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- It is trite that alternative remedy itself is no reason to reject a writ petition when it can be shown that the impugned orders are ex facie contrary to the settled propositions, including positive directions by the higher Courts. If it is undisputed that the limitation for the petitioner’s subject refund applications expired during the period between 01.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, the petitioner would be entitled for an extended limitation of ninety [90] days from 01.03.2022 and the applications are within this time, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order sustained.
The petition is allowed quashing the impugned orders dated 20.07.2022 in Nos.44/2022, 45/2022 and 46/2022 (Annexures – A, A-1 and A-2) by the third respondent and the petitioner’s refund applications are restored for reconsideration.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1256 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Deletion/modification of condition on which regular bail was granted - deletion of condition of providing bank guarantee of an amount of Rs.3 Crore, for a period till final disposal of the case - HELD THAT:- On going through the averments made in the application that the applicant is in jail since September, 2022 and during his jail period, his conduct is also good. Keeping in mind the offence alleged, the application deserves to be allowed by modifying the condition imposed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara.
The application is hereby allowed and the Condition imposed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara vide order dated 14.12.2022 is hereby modified to the extent that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.1.5 Crore, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, within period of two months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. However, rest of the conditions imposed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara remain intact.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1250 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - evasion of tax based on false calculation - forging of documents - compounding of offences - HELD THAT:- Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, in case of RATNAMBAR KAUSHIK VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2022 (12) TMI 263 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner.
In present case, the petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2022 and charge sheet has been filed on 16.09.2022. Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned counsels for the respective parties and especially the law laid down by the Hon’be Supreme Court of India in case Ratnambar Kaushik; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
The bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-Vishesh Sahal S/o Shri Dinesh Prakash Sahal 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 other conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1238 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of UPGST Act - respondents submitted that the petitioner having not come forward in response to notice issued for assessment of the amount, the penalty was to be levied in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The order, imposing penalty on the petitioner, passed under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act, deserves to be set aside. It is undisputed case of the parties that the goods were accompanied by invoice and e-Way Bill, wherein the name of the petitioner is mentioned as consignor. The fact, that the petitioner is a registered dealer, is also not in dispute as even survey of petitioner's business firm was carried out immediately after detention of the goods and the firm was found to be carrying on its business.
Once the documents clearly establish the name of the consignor, who is a registered dealer in the State, the proceedings should have been initiated against the owner of the firm instead of the driver, so as to enable him to respond to the notice. In any case, once from the facts on record, which have gone undisputed, the petitioner, who is consignor in the invoice and e-Way Bill, claims himself to be the owner of the goods, the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act could not be invoked for imposing penalty.
The impugned order dated December 15, 2022 passed by the respondent no. 2, is set aside giving him the liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1237 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - levy of penalty - it is alleged that the goods were not matching with the invoices as certain goods were found either to be more or less than the quantity mentioned in the invoices - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned dated October 7, 2022 deserves to be set aside for the reason that the consignors and consignees are present and accepting ownership of the seized goods. The consignors are registered dealers in the State of U.P.
In view of the clarification given by the Board vide its Circular dated 31, 2018, levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act was not called for and could not be justified as Section 129(1)(a) of the Act provides that where owner of the goods comes forward for payment of penalty, the amount has to be two hundred per cent of the tax payable, whereas, in the case in hand, the penalty has been levied to the tune of hundred per cent of the value of the goods.
The impugned order dated October 7, 2022 passed by respondent no. 2 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed - The matter is remitted back to the competent authority for passing fresh order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1231 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - case of the petitioner is that he has not been able to get the show cause notice issued by the respondent and, therefore, he could not submit the reply within the stipulated time - HELD THAT:- The present petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the order passed by this Court in TECHNOSUN INDIA PVT. LTD. LUCKNOW THRU. ITS DIRECTOR AMIT KUMAR GAUTAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THRU. PRIN. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL G.S.T., LKO. U.P. AND 2 OTHERS [2022 (9) TMI 1412 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - In the said judgment, the Court has held that the impugned order does not assign any reason whatsoever for cancelling registration of the petitioner and is passed only on the ground that reply to the show cause notice is not given. The non-submission of reply to the show cause cannot be a ground for cancellation of the registration.
The present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. The benefit of the order shall also be made available to the present petitioner.
The order is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent along with the reply to show cause notice and the certified copy of this order within three weeks from today - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1225 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Classification of supply - inter-state supply or intra-state supply? - supply of mobile recharge coupons and Direct To Home (DTH) recharge vouchers to recipients, who are located in other States - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the amount of tax due on the transaction has already been paid and only dispute is whether it is to be treated as intra-state sale or inter-state sale, recovery of the demand raised vide order dated December 3, 2022 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to April 27, 2023.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1224 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - Movement of goods through valid e-way bill - Levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 - bogus firms - it is alleged that selling dealer was non existent at the place where his firm is said to have been registered and only through the e-way bill generated, goods were being sent from some other undisclosed place and ITC was to be claimed - HELD THAT:- Both the authorities have recorded a categorical finding to the effect that selling dealer, M/s. Sunshine Overseas was registered at Shri Ram Colony, Siya Wali Masjid, Rajeev Nagar, North East Delhi, Delhi. The e-way bill mentioned the goods to have been dispatched from the said place. The statement of the driver recorded disclosed that goods were loaded from Mayapuri, Delhi, which is 18 kms. away from Rajeev Nagar. On physical verification of the premises of M/s. Sunshine Overseas, it is clear that no business transaction was being done from that place and the GST registration was suspended on 04.05.2022. The selling dealer till date has not responded to the notice of the taxing authorities nor has come forward to state that goods were sent by him through the e-way bill alleged to have been generated from the portal from the address mentioned therein. The taxing authorities had also scrutinized the records of the selling dealer for the assessment year 2021-22 and found that it was not indulging in any sale and purchase and bogus transactions were only made for claiming ITC.
Once, it is found that selling dealer was bogus firm, the goods carrying the e-way bill generated by such firm is of no benefit to the petitioners as the same has been used for transiting the goods from non bona fide dealer from undisclosed place.
Thus, no interference is required in the orders passed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 - petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1223 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Validity of summary SCN - Attachment of Bank Account of petitioner - input tax credit on inward supply in accordance with Section 16 of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It transpires that a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the JGST Act, 2017 dated 7.1.2022 (Annexure-1) for the tax period January 2019-February 2019 was issued. However, from bare perusal of Annexure-1, it appears that the same is issued in a format without striking out of irrelevant particulars, thus the same is vague and does not spell out clearly the contravention for which the petitioner is charged. It is in fact, worse than summary of show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 of the same date.
Now it is well settled that the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) of the Act is not mere a formality.
As a matter of fact, the intent of legislature for issuing a show cause notice along with DRC-01 is that the DRC-01 is a summary of show cause notice and show cause notice should be in detailed giving the facts and circumstances and the grounds for levying tax. However, by going through the impugned show cause notice dated 7.1.2022, it appears that it is in a format without striking out the irrelevant particulars. It further transpires that the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar finally issued DRC-07 on 9.2.2022 without giving any further opportunity which is certainly beyond the provisions of law - the show cause notice is in a format and is not in a strict compliance of Section 73 (1) of the JGST Act and Rule 142(1)(a) of the Rules and since the principle of natural justice has not been complied in the instant case, the ground of alternative remedy is not acceptable by this Court. For the reasons stated hereinabove the instant application is allowed and the impugned show cause notice and DRC 01; both dated 7.1.2022 and also the summary of order issued under DRC-07 dated 9.2.2022, are hereby, quashed and set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Deoghar, Jharkhand to pass a fresh order after following due procedure of law from the stage of issuing fresh show cause notice strictly in accordance with law - Application allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1222 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Blocking of electronic credit ledger - No reasons were informed - Prayer for grant of the interim order pending consideration of such declaratory relief - vires of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The concession made by the learned advocate for the appellant on behalf of the appellant is placed on record and the prayer for declaration of Rule 86A of the said Rules as ultra vires is struck off. The other prayer made by the appellant/writ petitioner is to withdraw the blocking of the electronic credit ledger and restore the input tax credit. Such positive direction cannot be granted at this stage as the appellant does not know as to what are the reasons, which weighed in the mind of the appropriate authority before passing the order blocking the electronic credit ledger - the following order will meet the ends of justice and simultaneously protect the interests of revenue as well.
The writ petition as well as this appeal and the connected application are disposed of by directing the appropriate authority to intimate to the appellant within ten days from the date of receipt of server copy of this judgment and order the reasons for which the electronic credit ledger of the appellant was blocked along with the information as to which authority had passed such an order.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1168 - SC ORDER
Grant of bail - deposit a sum of Rs.70 Lakhs under protest - HELD THAT:- The condition directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.70 Lakhs is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside.
The rest of the conditions in the impugned order are sustained - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1167 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Seeking adjudication by this Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - classification of the Customs & Central Excise Tariff Act its product and declaration to this effect - Nonwoven Fabric - PSB Bed Sheet manufactured of non-woven fabric - HELD THAT:- This Writ Court in exercise of its Constitution Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not act as an expertise to scrutinise the composition and mode of manufacture of a product like of this nature and do the job of classifying a product as to under which classification list of the Customs Tariff Act such product falls since it requires scientific and technical analysis to be conducted by expertise in such scientific and technical field. In exercise of Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Writ Court should not scrutinise an adjudicating authority’s decision itself, by acting as an appellate authority over such order of the authority and substitute the findings of an authority by reappreciating the evidence and material and more particularly the nature of a case like this.
This is not a case where any violation of principles of natural justice has been committed or any procedural irregularity has been committed by the authority in passing the impugned order or violation of any specific statutory provision of law has been committed by the Appellate Authority concerned in passing the impugned order.
Petition dismissed.
........
|
