|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 2178 Records
-
2023 (10) TMI 1488
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - entitlement to benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax in terms of Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act upon deposit of the amounts as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 112 - HELD THAT:- The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification bearing Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S. O. 399, dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T Act, which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act, enters office.
Subject to deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed.
Petiiton disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1487
Seeking to set aside the order taking cognizance arising out of the application under Section 167 Cr.P.C. being treated as Complaint Case No.2144 of 2018, pending in the Court of the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur - HELD THAT:- It appears that in absence of any complaint and without any sanction, the learned Court has taken cognizance, which is not in accordance with law. There are procedure prescribed in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The cognizance was taken on 24.07.2018 and the sanction has been made on 26.09.2023 as discussed in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2 - the said order taking cognizance is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 24.07.2018 arising out of the application under Section 167 Cr.P.C. being treated as Complaint Case No.2144 of 2018, pending in the Court of the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur is set aside.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1486
Challenge to assessment proceedings for the year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively - seeking direction to respondent to pass fresh orders by rectifying the mistakes - impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity for personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It appears that the impugned order came to be passed on 22.06.2023, wherein it has been clearly stated that the notice for personal hearing was provided vide reminders dated 16.11.2022, 28.10.2022 and 15.05.2022. Further, it appears that the petitioner had asked for extension of time on 27.02.2023 and 29.03.2023 and in spite of the same, no reply was filed by the petitioner.
This Court is of the considered view that no interference is required with regard to the said impugned order passed by the respondent.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1485
Seeking to prevent the arrest in connection with an investigation and summon issued - it is submitted that as of today, the petitioner cannot claim any apprehension, since no statement as yet has been recorded under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and that the apprehension is misplaced - HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
List on 28.11.2023.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1484
Seeking withdrawal of petition - Principle of forum conveniens - Territorial limits of jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of this Court - whether the Principal Seat of the Madras High Court in Chennai has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Writ Petition when the cause of action has arisen wholly within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court? - HELD THAT:- Te cause of action for the Writ Petition, would have to be necessarily construed as having arisen wholly outside the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of this Court, notwithstanding that the office of the First Respondent is located in Chennai. Though obvious, it is made clear that no view has been expressed by this Court on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter.
When it is pointed out that the Writ Petition cannot be entertained in the Principal Seat of this Court in that backdrop, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to file fresh Writ Petition for the same relief before the Madurai Bench of this Court and he has made an endorsement to that effect in the court record.
The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1480
Seeking conconation of delay of 588 days in filing of the appeal - HELD THAT:- The period of limitation has to be counted from the date of service of copy of the order under challenge. Therefore, taking into consideration that whatever delay has occasioned, the same is required to be condoned, particularly in view of the tax effect involved in the present case.
The delay in filing of the appeal is condoned - List this appeal for admission on 07.11.2023.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1443
Seeking grant of bail - offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - it is submitted that the applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justified his arrest as provided in the Code - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR VERSUS BALCHAND @ BALIAY [1977 (9) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT], GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU AND ORS. VERSUS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT], RAM GOVIND UPADHYAY VERSUS SUDARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. [2002 (3) TMI 945 - SUPREME COURT], PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR VERSUS ASHIS CHATTERJEE AND ORS. [2010 (10) TMI 1199 - SUPREME COURT] and MAHIPAL VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA & ANR. [2019 (12) TMI 1461 - SUPREME COURT], the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, it is opined that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Hence, the present bail application is allowed, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1419
Withholding of GST liability payment in part - Revenue has no objection if petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the said claim for release of the balance amount - HELD THAT:- If a fresh representation is made by petitioner within a period of 15 days from today along with copy of this order to respondents No.2, 3 & 4, the same shall be considered and decided in regard to the said balance amount of GST.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1392
Directions for deciding appeals against Advance Ruling filed manually in a time bound manner, as the same have been pending adjudication well beyond the statutory limit of 90 days - HELD THAT:- The receipt of the said communication which was sent by e-mail is denied by counsel for the petitioner.
Leaving the said fact apart, since the process of hearing is already started, we are of the considered opinion that respondent No.2 shall make efforts to decide the appeals within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioner shall be put to notice at least 10 days in advance of the hearing which is to be fixed.
The present writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1368
The Gujarat High Court heard a case regarding the taxation of lease, tenancy, or easement under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that these activities should not be considered as supply of services. The court issued a notice returnable on 07.12.2023 and granted ad-interim relief.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1359
Rejection of revocation of cancelation of GST registration of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Given submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is read to pay whatever is the late fee as per the Rules so far as the delayed submission of returns is concerned. Taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kritika Agarwal [2023 (7) TMI 1006 - DELHI HIGH COURT] two orders are set aside i.e., the impugned order of the appellate authority, dated 08.08.2023 and the order of cancellation of GST registration, dated 25.03.2023 and remit the matter back to the respondent No.3 to consider the request of the petitioner so far as restoration of registration is concerned.
It goes without saying that the petitioner would be required to pay whatever is the late fee under the Rules and Circulars governing the field so far as the delayed submission of returns is concerned. It is also made clear that since the case is remitted back to the respondent No.3, the question of the limitation should not come in the way of petitioner so far as approaching the respondent No.3 seeking for restoration of registration of GST is concerned.
The writ petition is allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1355
Seeking to command the opposite parties to make payment of GST along with interest, on the value of work done for all contracts for which agreement were entered into with PWD/RED prior to 01.07.2017 - non-imposition of any penalty/charges/interest upon petitioner firm - HELD THAT:- Petitioner claims that Value Added Tax regime was changed to G.S.T. and he has deposited certain amount as tax. Earlier the work order against which the petitioner was working, he was entitled for payment of amount along with VAT/GST amount. Although, the VAT amount was paid to the petitioner but the GST amount was not paid, hence, the petitioner could not deposit the GST amount also with the Tax Department. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to the said GST amount from the respondents. He further claims that the work was performed for the respondent no.5/Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Hardoi, U.P. and respondent no. 6/Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand II, Public Works Department, Hardoi, U.P.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation before the respondent nos. 5 & 6 annexing therewith all the documents in support of his claim, within a period of one week from today.
The present writ petition is disposed of.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1345
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner without assigning any reason - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court is inclined to allow this petition. While allowing this petition, it is made clear that if the petitioner is liable to pay any tax or penalty, he is required to pay the same in accordance with law.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1339
Seizure of silver bars - seized silver was procured using the cash generated from the clandestine removal of the packaging material supplied by the petitioner firm - scope of Section 67 of the CGST Act - Reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- The officer while conducting the search may find various types of moveable assets. However, only those goods can be seized which are liable for confiscation while exercising the powers under Section 67 of the CGST Act - It is significant to note that the exercise of power under Section 67 pre-supposes ‘the reason to believe’ that a taxpayer has suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods or services.
The search in the present case was carried out after recording the reasons to believe that the petitioner is engaged in clandestine manufacturing and supply of their product, that is, various types of laminations. Therefore, silver, though being a movable asset, is not “goods” liable for confiscation while exercising the power under Section 67 of the CGST Act in relation to the products being traded by the petitioner.
The argument that the petitioner has not been able to produce lawful evidence of purchase of silver is of no consequence insofar as the action under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, as initiated in the present case, is concerned.
As far as the argument that in the subsequent investigation the petitioner is found to be trading in silver is concerned, it is clarified that the respondents are not precluded from proceeding further with the investigation and taking appropriate action under the Act. There is no dispute that in case the respondents have reason to believe that the petitioner has suppressed any transaction, in relation to the supply of goods and services, that may involve silver, in contravention of any provisions of the CGST Act or the rules made thereunder, an appropriate action under Section 67 of the Act can be initiated - the respondents are directed to forthwith release the silver bars and coins seized from the petitioner during the search conducted on 07.02.2023.
Let a fresh copy of the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner be supplied to Mr. Tripathi - List on 30.11.2023.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1337
Jurisdiction - Power of assessing order to review its own order - stand of the petitioner in the rectification application is that the petitioner mistakenly claimed excess input tax credit for SGST and same amount for CGST and this excess claim was rectified in the month of April, 2018 which is reflected in GSTR 3B - HELD THAT:- The assessing authority, however, by the impugned order has been of the view that the assessment order was finalised and it was passed as per the records made available. The assessing authority could not be justified by the subsequent event to review the assessment order. The view taken by the assessing authority in Exhibit P-5 does not appear to be incorrect. There is difference between rectification and an order on review. There is no power on the assessing authority to review its assessment order.
This writ petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed - However, it is open to the petitioner to file an appeal in accordance with the law before the appellate authority challenging Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-5 orders in accordance with the law. If the petitioner files the appeal, the same shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1336
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - impugned order indicates no reasons but merely mentions that the same was with regards to the impugned SCN - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Neither the impugned SCN nor the impugned order can be sustained. The impugned SCN does not refer to any reason for proposing to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration and was incapable of eliciting any meaningful response. The impugned order is also not informed by any reason and has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
The impugned SCN as well as the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration are set aside. The petitioner’s GST registration is directed to be restored forthwith - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1334
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition to seek remedy under law. The prayer was allowed, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (Citation: 2023 (10) TMI 1334 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT)
-
2023 (10) TMI 1333
Commanding the respondents to remit tax GST at the rate of 12% /18% on the work executed by the petitioner, in pursuance to the tender awarded by the 1st respondent - whether the respondents are duty bound to remit the tax of GST to the petitioner, depends on the interpretation of the terms of the contract / agreement between the petitioner and the respondent? - HELD THAT:- This court is not exercising the jurisdiction of civil court in respect of the mutual rights / obligations of the petitioner and the respondents under the contract. This court will not determine the scope of the terms of contract entered between the petitioner and the respondents. In effect, in the present writ petition, the prayer is akin to claim for a decree in a money suit. This court does not exercise the jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of fact. If the petitioner is aggrieved for non payment of money by the respondents under the contract, the remedy lies somewhere else and not before this court.
There are no substances and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1332
Petition to be entertained for the purposes of condoning the delay in filing the appeal or not - Excess Input Tax Credit claimed - order passed without opportunity of being heard - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It will be open for the petitioner to file an appeal with an application for condonation of delay in filing such appeal explaining the circumstances which are available to suggest to the appellate authority that the petitioner was prevented by way of a sufficient cause in filing such an appeal. This is observed in light of the recommendations of the 52nd GST council which so as to facilitate measures of trade has opined that the time period for filing appeals under Section 107 will be allowed in case such appeals are filed against orders which have been passed on or before 31.03.2023 up to 31.01.2024.
As far as the counsel’s submissions that the appellate authority will not be in a position to undertake exercise of remedy in light of sub-section 11 of section 107 of the Act, while filing an application for condonation of delay, the applicant – petitioner can suggest in what manner there has been a violation of principles of natural justice in light of the fact that while issuing notice on 03.12.2021, the assessment order indicates a discrepancy in figures inasmuch as the show-cause notice initially under DRC-01 indicated a figure of Rs. 46,85,584/- whereas the assessment order indicates discrepancy of Rs. 35,02,643/- whereas in the final order again a figure of Rs. 46,91,684/- is indicated. All these circumstances shall be taken into consideration by the appellate authority in the application for condonation of delay which otherwise can be decided in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1331
Condonation of delay of 59 days in filing appeal - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 12th December, 2022 passed by Respondent No. 3 is certainly bereft of any reasons. Respondent No. 3 has not considered the written submissions filed by the Petitioner dated 14th November, 2022 and 24th November, 2022 and the form in which the Appeal is filed, wherein it was specifically pleaded that the limitation would start from 28th August, 2022, that is the date of the petitioner receiving knowledge of the passing of O-I-O. In our view, Respondent No. 3 Appellate Authority ought to have considered the submissions of the Petitioner on this issue and ought to have given his reasons in the impugned order while deciding the limitation issue. There is no consideration of these submissions by Respondent No. 3 in the impugned order.
The impugned order suffers from infirmity and therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside - Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
