|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 2178 Records
-
2023 (12) TMI 1097
Principles of natural justice - valid SCN or not - non-application of mind - availment of irregular input tax credit - HELD THAT:- At the first blush, on perusal of the show cause dated 16th August, 2023, it appears that the submissions made by the appellants in their reply to the pre-show cause notice appears to have been considered. However, on a closer scrutiny of the show cause notice dated 16th August, 2023, it is seen that except extracting the reply given by the appellants, the authority has not dealt with the contentions, which were placed by the appellants in the reply to the pre-show cause notice. Thus, this would be sufficient to hold that the show cause notice dated 16th August, 2023 has been issued without due application of mind.
Be that as it may, this Court is satisfied that since the show cause notice dated 16th August, 2023 has been issued without due application of mind, without considering the reply to the pre-show cause notice and without conducting any inquiry or investigation at the supplier’s end, the show cause notice would call for interference. Thus, the Court is satisfied that the case on hand falls within one of the exceptional circumstances, where the Court will exercise its jurisdiction to interdict a show cause notice.
The appeal is allowed and consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the show cause notice dated 16th August, 2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to the stage of pre-show cause notice dated 31st March, 2023 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1095
Cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration - conditions as set out in Section 29(1) or 29(2) of the CGST Act satisfied or not - vague SCN - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’) enables a Proper Officer to cancel a dealer’s GST registration in certain circumstances. Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the CGST Act set out the circumstances in which a taxpayer’s GST registration can be cancelled. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the CGST Act specify the circumstances in which the registration can be cancelled from such date, including with retrospective effect, as the proper officer considers fit.
In the present case, it is noticed that the impugned SCN was issued solely on the basis of a letter received from another authority. The said letter is neither attached to the impugned SCN nor does the impugned SCN refers to the contents thereon The impugned order, does not indicate that the Proper Officer was satisfied as to any of the conditions as set out in Section 29(1) or 29(2) of the CGST Act - The impugned order does not indicate that the Proper Officer was satisfied as to any of the conditions as set out in Section 29(1) or 29(2) of the CGST Act.
The impugned order, cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration, is set aside and the respondents are directed to forthwith restore the same - petition allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1054
Provisional attachment of the Bank account u/s 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 - challenge to attachment order on the ground that the condition precedent to initiate proceeding under Chapter XII, XIV and XV of the GST Act is absent in the present case - HELD THAT:- So far as objection of the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition before this Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, is not sustainable since cause of action is a bundle of fact and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court since petitioner’s bank account in Kolkata was attached though may it be by an authority in Guwahati and in view of the fact that petitioner is a registered person in Kolkata and as such writ petition before this Court against the impugned order passed by the authority at Guwahati is maintainable.
So far as challenge by the petitioner the legality and validity of the impugned order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Act on the ground of non pendency or initiation of any proceeding against the petitioner is concerned, on reading conjointly Section 1(2), Section 6(1), Section 83, Section 122(1) and Section 122 (1A), Clause (i), (ii), (vii) and (ix) thereunder and judgments, relevant circulars and notification and taking into consideration materials found against the petitioners during investigation, CGST Guwahati authority’s action of attaching the bank account of the petitioner provisionally and the impugned order to this effect is very much legal, valid and within jurisdiction and is not liable to be interfered by this writ Court.
This Writ Petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1053
Rejection of appeal on the ground of being delayed - appeal was beyond even the one month period provided under Section 107 of the BGST Act - HELD THAT:- Aan appeal against an order under Section 73 or 74 has to be filed on or before 31.01.2024, and any appeal filed which is pending before the authority could also be considered as properly filed, even if there is delay in such filing.
In the present case, the appeal was filed and was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority. In such circumstances, it is only proper that the appeal be restored to the files of the Authority subject to the conditions under paragraph no. 3 being satisfied - Hence the petitioner would be entitled to satisfy paragraph no. 3 of the N/N. 53 of 2023- Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023 (S.O. 4767(E)) by paying up the deficient amounts as would be required to maintain the appeal under the notification - The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has by Notification No. 53 of 2023- Central Tax, dated 02.11.2023 (S.O. 4767(E)) extended the time for filing appeal against an order passed by the Proper Officer on or before 31.03.2023 under Sections 73 and 74 of the BGST Act. This in fact extends the period for filing a delayed appeal beyond the one month period as provided under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, on following the special procedure prescribed under the said Notification.
The impugned order set aside - petition allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1052
Validity of show cause cum demand notices issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Respondents are duty-bound to comply with the requirement of Section 67 (5). This Section provides that the person from whose custody any documents are seized shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an authorised officer at such place and time as such officer may indicate in this behalf except where making such copies or taking such extracts may, in the opinion of the proper officer, prejudicially affect the investigation.
The concerned Respondents are directed to dispose of the Petitioners' representations dated 03.05.2023, and and further representations as request in terms of Section 67 (5) of the said Act. This is because there is prima facie merit in Mr Agni's contention that they should have access to such documents for filing an effective reply/ response to the impugned notices which are now to be treated as show cause notices.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1051
Belated claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - purchase of Petroleum product - contention of the petitioner is that as per Section 38 of the GST Act read with Rule 60 of the TNGST Rules, the ITC shall be claimed through GSTR-2, GSTN had not provided the facility of GSTR-2 till now.
HELD THAT:- The respondents without giving any opportunity to file the returns by notifying the Form GSTR-2, cannot expect the taxable person to file returns. In fact, the petitioner has no intension to violate the provisions of the Act. In order to show his bonafide, he has filed physically. Moreover, all tax liability is paid and there is no loss to the department. Moreover, the petitioner has also claimed financial crisis. Even though the financial crisis cannot be a ground for not filing the returns in time, not notifying of Form GSTR-2 is clearly a ground to consider the petitioner's claim of belated returns.
The next contention of the petitioner is that the ITC can be claimed through GSTR-3B, but GSTN has not permitted to file GSTR-3B in online if the dealers had not paid taxes on the outward supply / sales. In other words, if the dealer is not enabled to pay output tax, he is not permitted to file GSTR-3B return in online and it is indirectly obstructing the dealer to claim ITC. In the present case the petitioner was unable to pay output taxes and so the GSTN not permitted to file GSTR-3B in the departmental web portal it is constructed that the petitioner had not filed GSTR-3B online, that resulted the dealer unable to claim his ITC in that particular year in which he paid taxes in his purchases. Hence if the GSTN provided option for filing GSTN without payment of tax or incomplete GSTR-3B, the dealer would be eligible for claiming of input tax credit - The petitioner had expressed real practical difficulty. The GST Council may be the appropriate authority but the respondents ought to take steps to rectify the same. Until then the respondents ought to allow the dealers to file returns manually.
This Court is inclined to quash the impugned orders and accordingly the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents shall permit the petitioner to file manual returns whenever the petitioner is claiming ITC on the outward supply / sales without paying taxes - the matter is remitted back to the authorities for reconsideration - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1050
Failure on the part of the respondent to deposit an amount paid by the petitioner towards Goods and Service Tax to the respondent No. 1 - HELD THAT:- It is informed by the learned counsel for the Khopoli Municipal Council that the amount of Rs.38,94,868/- has been deposited in this Court on 6th July 2023 by demand draft. If that be so, what remains is the deposit of the said amount with the GST Authorities, in even proportion as per the requirement of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act and also the Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax (MGST) Act - Registry of this Court accordingly to receive intimation from the learned Advocate for the said Respondents authorities, to furnish bank account details of the concerned jurisdictional authorities so that the said amount can be transferred by this Court. The said compliance would be completed within two weeks from today and on receipt of such information, office to deposit the amount as directed within one week thereafter.
The CGST Authorities and SGST Authorities to consider the Petitioner’s case sympathetically with regard to interest and penalty - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1049
Classification of supply - Supply of outputs as sale of goods - water sold as 'water including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters, not containing added sugar or sweetening matter, not flavoured (other than drinking water packed in 20 litre bottles) - classified under heading 2201 or not.
Supply of outputs as sale of goods or not - HELD THAT:- From the conjoined reading of section 4 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of State of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) [1958 (4) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT], it is clear that the modus of operation as purchase of effluent and sale of output is applicable only if all the elements cited in the Section and judgement cited are present. If that is the case, then the classification of supply of treated water, salt and other products, as sale of goods is correct - However, it is emphasized that the mode of operation intended by the applicant i.e. purchase of raw effluent, treating the same and selling the resultant products, can be classified as sale of goods, if and only if, the applicant follows the procedures envisaged in the Sale of Goods Act and rationale of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court. If such is the case, the proposed mode of purchase of raw effluent, treat it on own account and supply of output, can be treated as sale of goods and consequently the first question is answered in the affirmative.
Whether the classification of water sold as 'water including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters, not containing added sugar or sweetening matter, not flavoured (other than drinking water packed in 20 litre bottles) under heading 2201 is correct? - HELD THAT:- Water grouped under the heading 22.01 is ordinary water whether or not clarified or purified. And this heading specifically excludes distilled or conductivity water and water of similar purity which are classified in heading 28.53. Therefore, it is amply clear that, water recovered out of the effluent treatment process nothing but an ordinary water which is suitable for reuse by the dyeing and bleaching units as a solvent and as a washing, rinsing medium. Thus, it aptly fits into Sl. No. 99 of Notification No. 02/2017, CT (Rate), dt.28.06.2017 under the heading 2201 rather than Sl.No.24 of Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 under the same heading 2201 - As per Circular No. 179/11/2022, dated 03.08.2022, issued by Ministry of Finance, regarding applicability of GST on various goods and services, it has been clarified that treated sewage water attracts Nil rate of tax.
The ultimate intention behind the effluent treatment process is to treat the effluent water discharged by textile units to recover water, salt and other chemicals consumed during the course of dyeing and bleaching to the maximum extent possible so as to reuse the same without getting it discharged to pollute water bodies. Moreover, ZLD has been mandated by the TNPCB for all the highly polluting industries including Textile Dyeing and Bleaching industries in order to prevent pollution of River water and ground water. Therefore, it is evident that the common effluent treatment plant has been set up in order to comply with the legislative and environment regulations thereby conserving water through recovery and reuse and not to manufacture water or chemicals - effluent treated water is eligible for exemption as per Notification No. 2/2017- Central Tax Rate as amended vide notification No.7/2022-Central Tax (Rate), dated the 13th July, 2022.
-
2023 (12) TMI 996
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - SCN do not specify the alleged fraud or the misstatement alleged to have been made by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- It is trite that a show cause notice must clearly set out the allegations on the basis of which an adverse action is proposed, to enable the noticee to meaningfully respond to the same. Clearly, the SCN in the present case fails to satisfy the said standard - The impugned order is also not informed any reason and it merely mentions that the same has been issued in reference to the SCN.
It is noticed that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled with retrospective effect from 23.05.2023. Neither the SCN nor the impugned order provides any reasons for doing so.
The respondent is directed to forthwith restore the petitioner’s GST registration - The SCN as well as the impugned order are set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 995
Validity of assessment order - proceedings initiated against a dead person - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that the impugned assessment order came to be passed against the dead person, which is non-est in law and hence, it is liable to be set aside. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners shall construed the notice issued by the respondent dated 06.07.2022 as a notice issued to them as on date. Further, the petitioners are directed to file a reply to the said notice within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders after providing opportunities to the petitioner for personal hearing.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 994
Validity of SCN issued u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 - invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court contending that the Show Cause Notice is vague - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of the Show Cause Notice itself would give a clear indication that the Show Cause Notice lacks necessary information, source and the materials on the basis of which the authority concerned found the necessity for issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The Show Cause Notice, from the plain reading, seems to be one which has been issued in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without any cogent sufficient materials available or even the basic scrutiny or the investigation which were required for the authority concerned in reaching to the conclusion that certain transactions which have been carried on by the respondents appear to have been the transactions where there is evasion of tax or where there is suppression of material facts or atleast there was reasonable suspicion on the transactions so made by the petitioner.
This Court also finds sufficient force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner when they say that since the proceeding has been initiated under Section 73 of the Act, the very provision of Section 73 of the Act starts with the words where it appears to be for the authority concerned which by itself means that at the time where the authority appears to found it necessary for initiating the proceedings, there ought to had been some material, information or even sort of a complaint available with them as regards the suspicious transactions or the alleged evasion of tax made by the petitioner.
Ex. P1 – Show Cause Notice, dated 29.09.2023 would not be sustainable as they are bereft of facts and materials and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 993
Seizure of goods - Absence of proper documents for movement of goods - levy of IGST or CGST+SGST - Levy of penalty - gold ornaments - goods meant for sale on approval basis for which delivery challan was issued by the supplier - person in charge of the goods could produce only a delivery note which was not a valid document for movement of goods - HELD THAT:- The goods which are taken for supply on approval basis can be moved from the place of business of the registered supplier to another place within the same State or to a place outside the State on a delivery challan along with the e-way bill wherever applicable and the invoice may be issued at the time of delivery of goods. For this purpose, the person carrying the goods for such supply can carry the invoice book with him so that he can issue the invoice once the supply is fructified.
The provisions of law does not provide for any substitute to the prescribed delivery challan. The Circular dated 18.10.2017 issued by the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs also indicates that there is no substitute for the prescribed delivery challan. Therefore, non-possession of prescribed delivery challan at the time of seizure of the goods weakens the case of the petitioner.
The record also reveals that after seizure of the goods, the owner of the goods appeared before STO seeking release of goods on the plea that the goods in question were for sale on approval basis and therefore accompanied by a delivery note along with a letter from the consignor certifying that the goods were for sale on approval basis but the said letter was misplaced by the courier agency. In the absence of valid delivery challan as prescribed under the rules, tax and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner under Section 129 of the Act.
The record further reveals that the petitioner had voluntarily agreed in writing to pay tax and penalty as is also evident from the perusal of order passed by the STO. Payment of tax and penalty by the petitioner clearly indicates that the person in charge of the goods was not having a valid delivery challan when the goods were intercepted by the State Taxes Officer. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was made to sign on the blank papers under duress is concerned, the declaration supra indicates that same has not been signed under protest, as such, the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is only an afterthought - Once the petitioner in terms of the declaration declared himself as an owner and accepted the liability of tax and penalty then he is estopped in raising such kind of allegations against the respondents that too without any reasonable justification.
The aforesaid two grounds viz. non possession of valid delivery challan along with document substantiating the stand of the petitioner that it was sent for approval at the time of seizure of the goods and payment of tax and penalty voluntarily deposited by the petitioner at the time of release of the goods are sufficient reasons to dismiss the case of the petitioner - there are no infirmity in the impugned orders - petition dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 992
Denial of right of second appeal - denial on account of the failure of the appropriate Government to constitute the tribunal - denial of a statutory right - inconsistency of some interim orders passed by this Court as regards the amount of pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- One line of interim orders contemplates deposit of 30% of the amount out of which 10% which is deposited before the first appellate authority is liable to be adjusted.
The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act as well as the Central Goods and Services Tax Act contemplate pre-deposit of certain amounts i.e. 10% of the of the disputed tax liability before the first appellate authority. In addition to that, 20% of the disputed tax liability is liable to be deposited before the second appellate authority at the time of institution of the appeal - In congruent facts, identical interim orders are liable to be granted, otherwise an anomalous situation will be created where similarly situated persons will be accorded differential treatment leading to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The second aspect which requires to be given weight is that the assessee cannot be faulted for what is essentially a failure of the Government. The statute contemplates deposit of 10% plus 20% of the disputed tax liability before the first and second appellate authorities respectively. By imposing a demand of 50% in these matters, the assessees will be penalized for no fault of theirs - The grant of interim orders in the aforesaid manner made in the said orders passed by this Court balances the interests of revenue as well as the rights of the assessees. However, it needs to be clarified that it is always open to the Court to grant interim orders which are at variance with the aforesaid orders in peculiar facts and circumstances of a particular case while exercising writ jurisdiction in the interests of justice.
The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the disputed tax liability in addition to the earlier deposit before the assessing authority (which is 10% of the disputed tax amount). Subject to the aforesaid deposit, the recovery proceedings of the balance amount shall remain stayed till the decision of this writ petition - List after six weeks.
-
2023 (12) TMI 991
Cancellation of G.S.T. registration of the petitioner - contention of the learned senior counsel is that immediately on receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner had immediately taken necessary steps and have filed entire returns up till date - HELD THAT:- Though the Department has been granted couple of opportunities to seek instructions, the only oral instructions received by the learned counsel for the Department is to the extent that the order of cancellation does not seem to be on the grounds which were otherwise there in the show cause notice, dated 02.07.2020, but on the ground of the petitioner having fraudulently availed I.T.C. to the tune of Rs. 31 Crores. The learned senior standing counsel for the Department in this regard referred to the correspondence received from the Department, dated 30.05.2023.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after the show cause notice having been issued, taking advantage of the circular of the Government of India extending the time of furnishing the returns, the returns have already been filed by the petitioner within the extended period of time, it is found difficult to sustain the impugned order (Annexure-P1), dated 25.08.2023. On this very ground alone, the impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set-aside/quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to forthwith restore the G.S.T. registration of the petitioner.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 990
Violation of principles of natural justice - manpower supplying service - whether proper tax along with applicable interest had been deposited by the petitioner on the Indian component for payment or not? - HELD THAT:- Mr. Deepak Kakkar, Advocate accepts notice for Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Cousnel, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
To come up for service of respondent No. 4 on 13.02.2024.
-
2023 (12) TMI 989
Recovery of penalty pursuant to the order impugned - no Tribunal is constituted - HELD THAT:- Reading the order would indicate that the author of the order had opined that the petitioner should inform the authority if any appeal or stay application has been filed against the OIA dated 31.07.2023 and whether the Appellate Authority has granted stay of the order. It is the case of the authority that if no stay of recovery of dues has been granted, the petitioner is called upon to pay the dues in question.
Issue NOTICE returnable on 07.12.2023.
-
2023 (12) TMI 944
Cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect - failure to furnish the returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the impugned order does not set out any intelligible reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration, let alone doing so with retrospective effect - it is also material to note that the learned counsel for the petitioner had confined his challenge to the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect. It is stated that the petitioner had no objection to his GST registration being cancelled but the same cannot be done with retrospective effect, as the same has a cascading effect on the petitioner’s customers whom the supplies were made.
The impugned order to the extent that it directs cancellation of the petitioner’s registration with retrospective effect, is set aside - petitioner’s GST registration shall stand cancelled from the date of the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, that is, with effect from 06.06.2023.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (12) TMI 943
Recovery of IGST - Validity of demand / show cause notice - Jurisdiction of CAG to issue notices / SCN - Conditions and procedure for issuance of SCN u/s 73(1) - HELD THAT:- Prior to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 73[1] of the CGST Act, 2017, it is mere discrepancy. At that stage, the alleged discrepancy would only be a discrepancy simplicitor but at the stage of issuance of Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under Section 73[1] of the CGST Act, 2017, there is formation of a prima facie opinion on the part of the Proper Officer that there is an act, which is in violation of the statutory obligation cast on the noticee. Admittedly in the case in hand, the Form GST ASMT-10 was not issued to the petitioner. A contention has also been raised that the CAG is not the Proper Officer to issue any kind of letters regarding the discrepancy.
This Court finds force in the contentions advanced by the petitioner that an act of issuance of the impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 05.09.2023 under Section 73[1] of the CGST Act, 2017 by the Proper Officer was without compliance of the mandatory conditions precedent, prescribed under the CGST Act, 2017 and the CGST Rules, 2017, more particularly, the provisions of Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 99 of the CGST Rules, 2017, to derive jurisdiction to issue such a Demand-cum- Show Cause Notice under Section 73[1] of the CGST Act, 2017, impugned herein.
Thus, it is ordered that the operation of the impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice shall remain stayed, till the returnable date.
-
2023 (12) TMI 942
Manner of payment of pre-deposit - Blocking of Input Tax Credit - request of adjustment towards the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) to file an appeal came to be rejected by the Appellate-Authority - prayer for a direction to the Respondents to consider the deposit of Rs. 1 Crore as sufficient compliance of Section 107(6) of the CGST/MGST Act - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Petitioner is in no manner disputing that the Petitioner is required to comply with the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, in filing the appeal. In other words, the Petitioner is ready and willing to make the payment/deposit of the tax as per clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (6) of section 107 of the CGST Act. However, the question raised by the Petitioner is that for fulfilment of such condition, the amount of tax, which is voluntarily deposited by the Petitioner, under protest under sub-section (5) of section 73 of the CGST Act, by permitted to be reckoned for the purposes of a pre-deposit for compliance of sub-section (6) of section 107 of the CGST Act. In our opinion, such request for the Petitioner is not something, which is opposed to law, inasmuch as, on a holistic reading of section 73 of the CGST Act, it can be said that an amount deposited under sub-section (5) section 73 of the CGST Act is not an amount, which is deposited in pursuance of any demand or any assessment order. It is certainly a voluntary deposit and which is subject to all the contentions of the assessee.
Thus, when it comes to the compliance of sub-section (6) of section 107 of the CGST Act, namely, the mandatory payment of the tax, being a condition precedent, mandated in terms of the provisions of subsections (6)(a) and (6)(b) of section 107 of the CGST Act, the principle as laid down in Supreme Court in VVF (India) Ltd. [2021 (12) TMI 477 - SUPREME COURT] would become applicable considering that the provisions of the CGST Act on pre-deposit are not too different from the provisions of the MVAT act, which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court.
Blocking of input tax credit - HELD THAT:- The input tax credit is contended to have been blocked on 19th April 2022 and the period of one year expires on 19th April 2023, hence, by operation of law as per Section 83(2) of the CGST/MGST Act, the said attachment ceases to exists.
The Respondents are directed to treat sum of Rs. 1 Crore as pre-deposit for the purpose of Section 107(6) of the CGST/MGST Act and the appeal be decided on merits - The input tax credit alleged to have been blocked vide order dated 19th April 2022 stands defreezed by operation of law - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (12) TMI 941
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Validity of assessment order - rejection of appeal on the ground of limitation - It is urged that the assessment order itself was an ex parte order - HELD THAT:- Having not availed the statutory remedies available, the petitioner cannot seek to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge an assessment order especially with respect to the computation of the turn over and the determination of the taxable turnover and the tax payable, as arrived at by the Assessing Officer. In the BGST Act, an appellate remedy is provided under Section 107, which has to be availed within a period of three months or with a delay within a further period of one month.
It is trite law that when there is a specific period for delay condonation provided, there cannot be any extension of the said period by the Appellate Authority or by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner by his own failure has not availed the appellate remedy and in that circumstance, there can be no invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - there is no jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or abuse of process of Court averred or argued by the petitioner in the above writ petition. The gross delay also stands against the petitioner.
Petition dismissed.
........
|
9911796707
