|
Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2015 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1027 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Input Tax Credit - mismatch in the Input Tax Credit claimed in GSTR-3B and that appearing in GSTR-2A during the period April, 2018 - March, 2019 - It is the petitioner’s case that the conditions mentioned in Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 are not satisfied in the present case - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is directed to be treated as a representation to respondent no.1, who is directed to decide the same by way of a reasoned order within four weeks, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or its authorized representative. The present writ petition and application stand disposed of.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1026 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - requirement of pre-deposit - he petitioner is ready and willing to deposit an additional 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute in compliance of the requirements under Section 112 (8) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute in accordance with Section 112 (8) of the Act within three weeks from today and in which event, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall remain stayed till disposal of the instant petition. List for hearing in the second week of February, 2020 before the appropriate Court.
- 2020 (9) TMI 985 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Search and Seizure - the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent which is without any legal basis - HELD THAT:- This order is in continuation of order dated 14.08.2020. No coercive steps be taken against the petitioners till the next date of hearing, i.e., 30.09.2020. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners ensure the compliance of order dated 14.08.2020 shall be done within the time frame fixed.
- 2020 (9) TMI 984 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - there exists valid tax invoice and e-way bill - Contention is that merely because certain loose invoices were also found, the liability cannot be converted into one under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act - HELD THAT:- Matter requires consideration. In the event, petitioner deposits the disputed amount of tax and penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) and also furnishes security in respect of the remaining amount found due and payable under the order of Appellate Authority, the detained goods shall be released to the petitioner subject to final outcome of this petition.
- 2020 (9) TMI 983 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Allegation of Bribery - Excise and Taxation (GST) officer - evasion of GST - The evasion of tax is by connivance of transporters, officers/officials of Excise and Taxation Department and the passers - It is alleged that the tax was being evaded by ensuring that there was no checking or verification of the documents or goods, while being transported to & from State of Punjab - HELD THAT:- The nature of allegation in present case of evasion of GST requires a deeper probe. There are far reaching ramifications which may vary from allowing of input credit/ MODVAT of tax not paid to the Government to an eventuality that the credit of tax paid on some other product is used for something else. Not only this, someone later in chain in spite of being a bona fide purchaser not aware of the earlier misdeed in the chai....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 982 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - service of notice - grievance of the petitioner is that the notice dated 7th February, 2020 issued by the respondent No.2 DG to the petitioner is not in compliance with Rule 129(3)(a) & (b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice though has sought to contend by reading of Rule 129(2) that the proceedings still are at the stage thereof and the stage of issuance of notice under Rule 129(3) has not reached but prima facie it does not appear to be correct inasmuch as Rule 129(1) as well as Rule 129(2) use the word 'investigation' and Rule 129(3) provides that, before initiation of investigation, notice containing the aforesaid particulars will be issued. It thus appears that before the investigation under Rule 129(2) is initiated, no....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 981 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Levy of CGST and IGST - Duty Free Shops (DFS) at Airport - Refund of the Input Tax Credit - supply of goods and services effected by the petitioner in the arrival and departure Duty Free Shops (DFS) at Calicut International Airport in terms of the Concession Agreement - applicability of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the rules thereunder - levy of CGST and IGST on the revenue sharing in terms of the Concession Agreement dated 22.04.2016. HELD THAT:- The question posed qua entitlement of refund of taxes in respect of goods and services provided at international airport would be applicable to outgoing international tourist i.e. departure area in view of the Circular dated 29.06.2020 as has been argued by the Revenue, would also ....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 980 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy is available for the petitioner against the impugned orders - appealable order or not - HELD THAT:- he present writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall file an appeal against the impugned assessment orders under Annexures-2, 3 and 4 within a period of 15 days from today before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. In the event the appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Simultaneously, if the petitioner files an application before the competent authority within the period as stated above for revocation of cancellation of registration as per the procedure prescribed under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the competent authority shall decide the same on merits. The writ petition stands disposed of.
- 2020 (9) TMI 979 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Revocation of cancellation of registration - filing of return with part payment of tax or with outstanding tax liability - manual filing of GSTR 3B till August 2020 and from September 2020 onwards electronically - permission of payment of GST liabilities in accordance with the undertaking attached - HELD THAT:- It appears from the materials on record that the GST registration of the writ applicant has been cancelled for failure to file appropriate returns. We take notice of the fact that entire issue has been brought to the notice of the Commissioner of SGST by way of representation dated 26th August 2020 addressed to the Commissioner, SGST, Ahmedabad. In the said representation, the request is two-fold; first to revoke the cancellation of registration as according to the writ applicant, it is causing unnecessary hardship in the current s....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 978 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Refund of unutilized ITC - inverted duty structure - Circular No.59/33/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure-4) issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs - HELD THAT:- Since an efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to assail the legality and validity of the order passed under Annexure-5, this Court should be slow in entertaining the writ petition at this stage. The petitioner has also not made out any ground for interference with the order under Annexure-5 in a writ petition which he cannot raise before the Appellate Authority. The grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered by the Appellate Authority in exercise of power under Section 107 of the Act. This Court without interfering with the impugned order under Annexure-5, dispose....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 931 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit - accumulation on account of being subjected to an inverted duty structure - constitutional validity of Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - constitutional validity of amended Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - ultra vires of Section 54 of the CGST Act and the Constitution of India - Whether it is necessary to read the word “inputs” in Section 54(3)(ii) as encompassing both goods and services so as to ensure that the said provision is not struck down? - Whether the words input services may be read into Section 54(3)(ii) as an exception to the general rule of casus omissus? - Whether the proviso to Section 54(3) qualifies and curtails the scope of the principal clause to the limited extent of specifying the two cases in which regist....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 930 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Demand of GST alongwith interest and penalty as well as encashment of 8 Bank Guarantee - detention of goods on the ground that e-way bills were faulty and undervalued and detention order passed - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, there is IGST demand of ₹ 2,36,63,256.00 with equal amount of penalty imposed, together the total dues comes to ₹ 4,73,26,512.00 - As against this, petitioner had paid IGST of ₹ 2,36,63,256.00. At the stage of preferring the first appeals petitioner had deposited 10% of the IGST dues amounting to ₹ 23,66,326.00. Thereafter while filing the second appeals under section 112 of the CGST Act petitioner deposited ₹ 47,32,651.00 being 20% of the IGST dues. Thus, petitioner had deposited an amount of ₹ 70,98,977.00 in addition to IGST dues already deposited. In all petitioner has deposited S....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 929 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of Notifications - N/N. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 issued by Respondent No. 1 under Section 9(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - N/N.1/2017Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 also issued by Respondent No. 1 under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act, 2017 - N/N. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017 issued by Respondent No.2 under Section 9(1) of the DGST Act, 2017 -conflict with the recommendations made by Respondent No. 3 in its 15th Meeting held on 03.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- This Court referred the matter to Respondent No. 3 in view of the seeming ambiguity in the minutes of the 15th GST Council Meeting, as portrayed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Court prima facie comprehended that the affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 was only a proposal of the Joint Secretary (TRU-1), CBEC that was not agreed....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 886 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Validity of Circular dated 15.03.2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance - recovery of CGST short paid - HELD THAT:- A strong prima facie case has been made out for grant of an interim relief in terms of paragraph 25(D) of the petition. We accordingly grant such relief. The respondents shall be served by way of email.
- 2020 (9) TMI 885 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Clearance of detained goods alongwith vehicle - section 129 of CGST Act - requirement of furnishing of Bank Guarantee for the clearance of goods - HELD THAT:- On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, and finding that a final order under Section 129(3) in Form GST Mov 09 has already been passed, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the First Appellate Authority, before whom Ext.P12 appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, to consider and pass orders on Ext.P12 appeal within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner either through a physical hearing or through video conferencing. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (9) TMI 884 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of anticipatory bail - arrest of Superintendent working in the office of Commissioner of CGST, Rohtak - Demanding bribe - Evasion of GST - Section 120-B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on account of a raid conducted by him for checking the difference of 6% GST to be paid by the complainant is a matter of evidence - It is undisputed fact that co-accused Kuldeep Hooda was arrested on the next day, i.e. 15.8.2020 and a huge unaccounted amount of ₹ 64 lacs was recovered from his house. Therefore looking into the serious allegations against the petitioner, which suggest his active involvement in the case, custodial investigation of the petitioner is required - Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (9) TMI 883 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of Consignment of watches - detention on the ground that the consignment not accompanied by a valid e-way bill - HELD THAT:- There are force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the effective value of the goods that was transported was only ₹ 8.99 as evident from Ext.P4 invoice, and the provisions of the Act and Rules mandate that an e-way bill is required only for consignments whose value exceeds ₹ 50,000/-, the detention at the instance of the respondent cannot be said to be justified. The respondent is directed to forthwith release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment before the said authorities - petition allowed.
- 2020 (9) TMI 882 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner not only the bail application is allowed without issuing any notice to the Department but the Court which granted anticipatory bail had no jurisdiction to grant the same as such application could have been listed either before the learned CMM or before the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. HELD THAT:- Issue notice to the respondents through all modes including email returnable on 20.10.2020.
- 2020 (9) TMI 881 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bail application - input tax credit - only difference between the case of the petitioner and co-accused is of the quantum involved - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the fact that maximum sentence involved is five years and petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 19 months and also taking note of the fact that matter is still at the stage of pre-charge evidence and co-accused has been enlarged on bail by this Court, it is deemed proper to allow the fourth bail application. This fourth bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
- 2020 (9) TMI 880 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - learned Single Judge has only relegated the appellant to appear before the Assessing Officer and submit their application and the Assessing Officer was directed to forward such application to the Nodal Officer, who in turn would forward it to the concerned Grievance Committee - HELD THAT:- Since the learned Single Judge has only directed the appellant to raise their grievance before the Nodal Officer/Nodal Committee, there is nothing to interfere with the said order by the Division Bench in the present intra court appeal. The case of the Assessee is admittedly pending before the learned Commissioner of Appeals as of now. Therefore, any observation on the merits of the case is likely to prejudice the case of the parties before us, either the assessee or the Revenue. Therefore, we decline to make any observation ....... + More
........
|
