|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 2178 Records
-
2023 (10) TMI 1330
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - obtaining illegal Input Tax Credit by entering into large scale financial transactions and thereby cheating the State exchequer - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations, this Court is of the opinion that, discretion is required to be exercised to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
This Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11210015220162 of 2022 registered with DCB Police Station, Dist. Surat on executing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1329
Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner could not be availed by petitioner - HELD THAT:- The petitioner could not also avail the virtual hearing, since he was not having such facilities. The petitioner has not preferred any statutory appeal within time. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner ought to be granted an opportunity and hence it would be deem fit to direct the petitioner to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to file an appeal within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by paying 7.5% of the assessed amount. The appellate authority shall consider the appeal without insisting on limitation.
Writ petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1328
Denial of opportunity of hearing - notice in the proceedings issued to the petitioner on 12.07.2021 seeking his reply within 30 days - HELD THAT:- There is complete agreement with the view taken by the coordinate bench in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals [2022 (3) TMI 492 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. Once it has been laid down by way of a principle of law that a person/assessee is not required to request for "opportunity of personal hearing" and it remained mandatory upon the Assessing Authority to afford such opportunity before passing an adverse order, the fact that the petitioner may have signified 'No' in the column meant to mark the assessee's choice to avail personal hearing, would bear no legal consequence.
The impugned order itself has been passed on 14.09.2021. The stand of the assessee may remain unclear unless minimal opportunity of hearing is first granted. Only thereafter, the explanation furnished may be rejected and demand created - Not only such opportunity would ensure observance of rules of natural of justice but it would allow the authority to pass appropriate and reasoned order as may serve the interest of justice and allow a better appreciation to arise at the next/appeal stage, if required.
The matter is remitted to the respondent no.3/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-6, Varansi to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1327
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - validity of assessment order - failure to respond to SCN and appear for personal hearing - HELD THAT:- The petitioner should have filed an appeal against the impugned Assessment order dated 08.08.2022 before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017 on or before 08.11.2022 or by 08.12.2022 with an application to condone the delay of 30 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to make out a case on merits. The fact remains that the present writ petition has been filed only on 03.08.2023 long after the impugned order came to be passed on 08.08.2022 followed by issuance of a summary in GST DRC-07 dated 10.08.2022.
As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT], this Court cannot entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after limitation for filing an appeal has expired. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1326
Cancellation of GST registration of petition - non-constitution of Tribunal under Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the Bihar Goods and Services Taxes Rules, 2017, GST REG-19 has a specific column where reasons have to be assigned. However, the Assessing Officer seems to be laboring under the belief that when an assessee does not appear or an objection is not filed, no reasons have to be assigned - the said order cannot be countenanced, especially when there is absolutely no reason stated regarding the cancellation of registration.
Reliance placed in the judgment of another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed in Manoj Kumar Sah versus The State of Bihar and Anr. [2023 (1) TMI 791 - PATNA HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that the authority ought to have at least referred to the contents of the show cause and the response thereto, which was not done. Not only the order is nonspeaking, but cryptic in nature and the reason of cancellation not decipherable therefrom. Principles of natural justice stand violated and the order needs to be quashed as it entails penal and pecuniary consequences - The impugned order in the instant writ petition also suffers from the very same illegality which has been pointed out by the Division Bench.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1292
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - cancellation on the ground that Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts - HELD THAT:- Though the show cause notice is vague, the petitioner seems to have submitted its reply dated 24.03.2023 with requisite particulars to the best of its ability. It clearly stated that to maintain proper supply chain and to have better control and operational efficiency on cost as well as convenience of operations, it applied for GST registration in A.P. by obtaining lease of part of the property owned by its parent company in Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner mentioned that all the TMT purchases of the petitioner are from its parent company and sales were spread over to different States.
The observations of the 2nd respondent would reveal that mainly basing on the fact that the registration of the petitioner and its parent company emanate from same premises, the 2nd respondent, without verifying the records to know whether the petitioner involved in issuing and obtaining the fake invoices and doing fake business to avoid tax, came to the conclusion that the place of business shown by the petitioner is not suited for the present business activities and hence, recommended for cancelation - it cannot be comprehended, even if the place of business of the petitioner for argument sake is not conducive for its business, how the said fact can be treated as sufficient to conclude that the petitioner obtained registration by committing fraud or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
In spite of the petitioner’s submission that the complete details of purchases and sales can be verified at any point of time, the 2nd respondent without resorting to such logical and legal exercise, simply carried away by the recommendations of the Inspecting Authority i.e., Deputy Assistant Commissioner who on a conjuncture suspected that the taxpayer may be engaged in bill trading without proper receipt and supply of goods, for which there is no proper basis. Therefore, the impugned registration cancellation order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
The cancellation order dated 20.04.2023 passed by 2nd respondent and the appellate order dated 07.07.2023 passed by 1st respondent are set aside with a direction to the respondent authorities to restore the GST registration of the petitioner within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1291
Levy of additional tax liability for execution of subsisting Government contracts either awarded in the pre-GST regime or in the post GST regime without updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for inviting the bids.
HELD THAT:- Considering the submissions of the parties this writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representation in the aforesaid regard as referred in preceding paragraph of this order, before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks from date. On receipt of such representation the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department shall take a final decision within four months from the date of receipt of such representation after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1290
Maintainability of petition - appealable forum not available - non availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- The matter shall appear for final hearing in the monthly list of December, 2023.
Statute requires that for filing appeal before the first appellate authority against the order in original petitioner is to make pre-deposit of 10% of the tax and in case petitioner wants to challenge the order of the first appellate authority before the Tribunal, petitioner/assessee will have to make a pre-deposit of additional 20% of the remaining disputed tax. But, in this case, petitioner submits that the respondent authority has recovered more than the aforesaid amount which are required to be paid by pre-deposit before the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority and recovered even before the expiry of the statutory period of time to file appeal before the Tribunal.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent authority concerned is directed to refund the excess amount of pre-deposit within two weeks from the date of communication of this order, subject to compliance of any other formalities which are required under the law.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1289
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation by taking the date of order under challenge as the date of communication - HELD THAT:- The appeal preferred by the petitioner on 13/14.04.2023 was within limitation as the date of communication of the order was 22.03.2023, when the petitioner for the first time became aware of the order dated 03.12.2021, but the respondent no. 2 arbitrarily dismissed the appeal as barred by time - Matter requires consideration.
List as fresh on 11.09.2023. Both the appeals to be heard together.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1288
Taxable Supply or not - determination of differential amount of GST - validity of summons and enquiry proceedings - petitioner-company has expressed its intention to contest the proceedings claiming that the issue involving interpretation of law. - Petitioner sought to issue SCN u/s 73 before raising any demand. - providing complete turnkey solutions from concept to commissioning and maintenance of the electrification works and other civil works to its customers. - HELD THAT:- From the tenor of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that still the inquiry is going on and final adjudication as per Section 73 of the CGST Act has not been done till date.
This writ petition is disposed off while directing the respondents not to insist the petitioner-company to pay the amount of Rs.5,51,49,553/-, as indicated in the impugned notices, till final adjudication is taken place under Section 73 of the CGST Act.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1246
Validity of Show Cause Notice - SCN issued straight away, without issuing a prior intimation under Rule 142(1A) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Violation of principles of natural justice - Applicability of Rule as amended - HELD THAT:- Prior to the amendment, Rule 142(1A) of CGST Rules, 2017 reads that the proper officer shall, before service of notice on the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty under Section 73(1) or 74(1) of CGST/APGST Act, communicate him the details of tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer in FORM GST DRC-01. The employment of the word ‘shall’ in Rule 142(1A) would indicate that the officer shall necessarily follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 142(1A) of the Act, meaning thereby, an intimation of tax shall be issued in terms of Rule 142(1A) at first and if there is no response from the tax payer, then he can issue a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of CGST/APGST Act - Rule 142(1A) of CGST Rules,2017 has been amended as by virtue of notification No. 79/2020-CT dt.15.10.2020 and by virtue of the said amendment, the words ‘proper officer shall’ has been substituted with the words ‘proper officer may’ as appearing in Rule 142(1A). Thus, post amendment, the issuance of intimation under Rule 142(1A) is not mandatory, but discretionary on the part of the assessing authority.
It is a trite law that whenever any ambiguity arises with regard to any provision, the benefit must go to the tax payer. In the instant case, since admittedly the tax period related to 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2021 which covers the pre and post amended period of Rule 142(1A), the 1st respondent ought to have issued tax intimation to the petitioner under Rule 142 (1A). Since it was not done, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the assessment order, dated 31.03.2022, fell foul of law and is liable to be set aside.
The impugned assessment order, dated 31.03.2022, passed by the 1st respondent is set aside with a direction to the 1st respondent to issue a fresh tax intimation to the petitioner in terms of Rule 142(1A) (pre amended Rule 142 (1A)) within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1245
Cancellation of Registration Certificate - SCN devoid of required particulars - 1st respondent has not referred and considered the explanation dated 06.07.2023 offered by the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The 1st respondent only mentioned that the registration was allegedly obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. However, there are no other relevant requisite facts mentioned in the said allegation as to the manner how the petitioner committed fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of the facts relating to his obtaining registration. In the present form of allegation, it will be difficult for anybody including the petitioner to offer his explanation to the said allegation No. 1.
As regards the allegation that, the ‘person’ issued invoice or bill without supplying goods or services are both, in violation of the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. Here also the said allegation is not clear enough to communicate whether the “person’ means the petitioner herein or his vendors and particulars of fake invoices and bills. Therefore, this allegation is also as vague as it could be without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation in a proper manner.
The 1st respondent, in issuing the show cause notice without necessary details and passing the final order of cancellation of Registration, not followed the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the show cause notice dated 12.06.2023 as well as the final order dated 03.08.2023 are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1208
Constitutional validity of section 84A of the Gujarat VAT Act - Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 and Article 246A enacted in exercise of constituent power - vires of Article 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India - power of amendment or repeal, subject to limitations under Section 19 or not
Interpretation of Section 19 - HELD THAT:- In the opinion of this Court, the mere circumstance that Section 19 does not get added to the Constitution, would not make any difference. If one looks closely at Articles 243 ZF which this Court interpreted in BONDU RAMASWAMY VERSUS BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. [2010 (5) TMI 867 - SUPREME COURT] and Article 243 ZT which was interpreted in VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY VERSUS GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. AND ORS. [2015 (3) TMI 1430 - SUPREME COURT] the effects of those provisions are the same as Section 19. Although those provisions continued to be part of the Constitution, they have no meaning and were merely historical. The reason is that they were operative, for a limited duration – like Section 19. However, the fact remains that those provisions as well as Section 19 were enacted in exercise of the constituent power. Section 19 is not, in this court’s opinion comparable to a mere Parliamentary enactment. There cannot be any gain in saying that Section 19 is not a mere legislative device. It was adopted as part of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act. Undoubtedly, it was not inserted into the Constitution. Whatever reasons impelled Parliament to keep it outside the body of the Constitution, the fact remains that it was introduced as part of the same Amendment Act which entirely revamped the Constitution.
It cannot be in dispute that Section 20 existed for a period of two years and enabled the President to issue orders for the removal of difficulties experienced in the course of implementing the amendments to the Constitution. If indeed those parts of the amendments were not enacted in the exercise of constituent power but mere legislative power, there would be no legitimacy of the power conferred upon the President under Section 20.
On an overall interpretation of the provisions of the Amendment, it is held that Sections 19 and 20 constitute incidental and transitory provisions which have limited life, so to speak. Whether they became part of the Constitution or not is really academic. What really matters is the effect of those provisions.
Whether the power of amendment or repeal is subject to limitations under Section 19? - HELD THAT:- The effect of the 97th amendment to the Constitution which came into force on 12.01.2012 was to introduce provisions, to strengthen the functioning of the cooperative societies in a democratic, autonomous and economically sound manner. Various new provisions granted constitutional status to cooperative societies and inserted Part IX-B in the Constitution which specified several conditions for state laws relating to cooperative societies. Article 243 ZT which is worded similarly to Section 19 of the present case sought to continue in force existing laws, for a limited duration until amended or repealed or until the expiration of one year from the commencement of the amendment act.
Once it is conceded that Section 19 was enacted as part of the constituent power and has the same force as the rest of the constitutional amendment and is not a mere Parliamentary enactment, one has to consider the consequence of this sequitur to such a finding - The 101st amendment as noted earlier uniquely transformed the indirect taxation regime and revamped the constitutional compact itself in one sense. Gone were the traditional delineations of distribution of legislative power including taxation fields which traced their origins to Articles 245 and 246 and also the rules for handling repugnancy which Article 254 had enacted. Instead, what was brought in was an entirely new concept of sourcing common or concurrent power of both the state legislatures and the Union through the newly added provision Article 246A.
There were no limitations under Section 19 (read together with Article 246A), of the Amendment. That provision constituted the expression of the sovereign legislative power, available to both Parliament and state legislatures, to make necessary changes through amendment to the existing laws. As held in Rama Krishna Ramanath [1962 (2) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT] the transitional power (in that case, Section 143 (3)) “the provision by its implication confers a limited legislative power to desire or not to desire the continuance of the levy.” This limited legislative power was not constricted or limited, in the manner alleged by the states; it is circumscribed by the time limit, indicated (i.e. one year, or till the new GST law was enacted). It could, therefore, enact provisions other than those bringing the existing provisions in conformity with the amended Constitution.
Validity of Telangana Act tested from the touch stone of its originating as an ordinance - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Telangana ordinance was promulgated on 17.6.2016. The Telangana State GST Act was enacted and received the assent of the Governor on 25.05.2017; it was brought into force on 01.07.2017. The state GST Act contained a savings and repeal law, which sought to save acts done, privileges and rights accrued under the repealed enactment, i.e. the State VAT Act - The question of legislative competence would not arise, because the mere confirmation of an ordinance is within the competence of the State legislature. Since the law was introduced through a different procedure, i.e. ordinance, the effect of that law, empowering the VAT officials to reopen or complete assessments, was no different.
The provisions of the ordinance, as approved by the later state act, which amended the local VAT Act’s, are valid.
Gujarat and Maharashtra Acts - HELD THAT:- There is no quarrel with the proposition that a legislative body is competent to enact a curative legislation with retrospective effect. Yet, the same vice that attaches itself to the Gujarat amendment, i.e. lack of competence on the date the amendment was enacted i.e. in this case, 09.07.2019, the Maharashtra legislature ceased to have any authority over the subject matter, because the original entry 54 had undergone a substantial change, and the power to change the VAT Act, ceased, on 01.07.2017, when the GST regime came into effect. Therefore, for the same reasons, as in the other cases, the amendments to the Maharashtra VAT Act cannot survive.
The appeals (and any other special leave petitions) filed by the States of Telangana and Gujarat are hereby dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1207
Constitutional Validity of Rule 31A of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- After the pleadings are complete, place these matters for final disposal on 05.02.2024. Place the matters high on board subject to any overnight part-heard matters.
All these matters are to be considered together.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1206
Jurisdiction - Initiation of proceedings by the proper officer under the MGST Act on the same subject matter, which a proper officer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated - HELD THAT:- It is found that under the CGST Act proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, however, it clearly appears that the subject matter of such investigation is in respect of the period from 1 July 2017 till 31 March 2021.
As informed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, such investigation is in regard to the fraudulent ITC. Insofar as the investigation being resorted under the MGST Act by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is concerned, it is in respect of the period from 1 April 2021 to 4 October 2023. This has been clarified by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (INV-02), Investigation-A, Mumbai, vide letter dated 7 October 2023 as addressed to the petitioners. It appears that although the petitioners were asked to furnish documents for the period from 1 July 2017 till 31 March 2021, the investigation, as informed to the petitioners, under the MGST Act would be for the period from 1 April 2021 to 4 October 2023. In such context, the petitioners themselves have taken a fair stand that the petitioners by requesting the State Authorities to investigate from 1 April 2021 till the date of such letter to avoid duplication of the proceedings.
At this stage, Revenue has stated that the scope of investigation as has been undertaken under the MGST Act is in respect of illegal refunds as sought by the petitioners - considering the documents on record and the contentions as raised, petitioner's contention cannot be accepted that the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the MGST Act, in any manner, are attracted in the facts of the present case.
The petitioners are not remediless as the petitioners can invoke provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, as in the present proceedings no criminal cause of action can be subject matter of adjudication.
Attachment of the property of the petitioners - HELD THAT:- The petitioners have a remedy of invoking Rule 159(5) of the MGST Rules, as and when the petitioners have a cause of action to raise such contentions against the attachment. Thus, such remedy being available to the petitioners, it would be premature for the petitioners to raise any such contention in the present proceedings.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1205
Constitutional Validity of Rule 31A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - issuance of the SCN has compelled the petitioners to approach this court challenging the vires of Rule 31A - HELD THAT:- Issue notice upon the respondents in Writ Petition as well as in I.A. No. 01 of 2023 subject to filing of requisites within three days. A copy of this order shall also be forward to the respondents along with the notice.
Let I.A. No. 01 of 2023 be heard on 05.12.2023. Until then status quo as of today shall be maintained by the respondents - List on 05.12.2023 on which date I.A. No. 01 of 2023 shall be heard.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1204
Input Tax Credit - denial on the ground that the Input Tax Credit to such an extent claimed by the petitioner-assessee was not effected in Form GSTR-2A and the supply dealer has not mentioned the supplies involved in the petitioner-dealer in form GSTR-1 - HELD THAT:- Section 155 of the GST Act, 2017, takes care of such a situation wherein the fact that the assessee/dealer has taken inward supply, and the dealer has prepaid the admissible GST to the supplier-dealer and the supplier-dealer has not deposited the said tax amount to the Government, in such a situation the burden is on the person who claims the Input Tax Credit to prove his claim. The paid person in such a situation is required to furnish documentary evidence to prove that such tax has been paid by him. The assessing authority has denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner was not reflected in GSTR-2A and he did not submit any proof of the payment of the GST to the Government.
The Supreme Court in the case of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS M/S ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED [2023 (3) TMI 533 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the assessing officer is required to give an opportunity to the assessee in respect of his claim for Input Tax Credit, if there is difference between GSTR- 2A and GSTR-3B. If on examination of the evidence submitted by the assessee, the assessing officer is satisfied that the claim is bonafide and genuine, the assessee should be given the Input Tax Credit. Merely on the ground that in Form GSTR-2A the tax to an extent of Input Tax Credit being claimed by the petitioner is not reflected should not be a sufficient ground to deny the claim of the assessee for Input Tax Credit.
Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and the judgment in the case of DIYA AGENCIES VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, UNION OF INDIA, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES & CUSTOMS, THE STATE OF KERALA [2023 (9) TMI 955 - KERALA HIGH COURT], the impugned assessment order so far as the denial of Input Tax Credit to the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 1,04,342/- is set aside. The case is remitted back to the file of the assessing authority to examine the evidence in possession of the petitioner as such irrespective of the difference in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B and on examination of the evidence, if the assessing authority is satisfied with the claim of the petitioner for Input Tax Credit to the extent of Rs. 1,04,342/- which is denied by the Assessing Authority shall pass orders in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1153
Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - Misuse of PAN number of the Chartered Accountant (CA) for fraudulent transaction and evasion of GST - correctness of contents of the status report filed by the Investigating Officer - HELD THAT:- It is stated that in the objections filed to the aforesaid status reports, it has been stated that the requisite documents have been provided. However, it is pertinent to note that in the application for bail as well as in the objections filed to the status report, the stand of the applicants are contradictory with regard to the dealings with M/s Madhu Enterprises. They have also further denied any involvement with Sanjay Kumar, whose statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
It is pertinent to note that as per investigation, the mobile number with which the said M/s Madhu Enterprises was registered with the GST Department belonged to the aforesaid Sanjay Kumar, who is stated to be a security guard of the applicants. The investigation from the GST Department has also revealed that the aforesaid M/s Madhu Enterprises made business transactions worth crores of rupees with three entities of which the present applicants were director and despite that said fact, the applicants have been evading from giving details of the said transaction.
The ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal [2023 (10) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has no application to the facts of the present case as the answers being given during investigation of the case, are on the face of it, totally evasive.
This Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary to unearth entire chain of transactions linked with M/s Madhu Enterprise at the behest of the present applicants and the entities in their control - Application dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1152
Levy of GST - works contract executed and completed after 1st July, 2017 wherein the contracts were awarded in the pre-GST regime or post-GST regime - HELD THAT:- It appears the respondent authorities concerned have to bear the additional tax liability for execution of subsisting Government contract either awarded to the petitioner during pre-GST regime or in post-GST regime without updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill for payment.
Considering the submissions of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representations stating all the facts and provision as referred in preceding paragraph of this judgment, before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks from date. On receipt of such representations the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department shall take a final decision within four months from the date of receipt of such representations after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1151
Levy of GST - works contract executed and completed after 1st July, 2017 wherein the contracts were awarded in the pre-GST regime or post-GST regime - HELD THAT:- It appears the respondent authorities concerned have to bear the additional tax liability for execution of subsisting Government contract either awarded to the petitioner during pre-GST regime or in post-GST regime without updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill for payment.
Considering the submissions of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representations stating all the facts and provision as referred in preceding paragraph of this judgment, before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks from date. On receipt of such representations the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department shall take a final decision within four months from the date of receipt of such representations after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned.
Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
