|
Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2188 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 (11) TMI 717 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - Section 171 of CGST Act and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules, specifically Rules 126, 127 and 133 of CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- Petitioner is directed to deposit the principal profiteered amount i.e. ₹ 58,43,170/- with Central Consumer Welfare Fund within three months. The interest amount as well as the penalty proceedings and further investigation with regard to other outlets are stayed till further orders. List the matter on 07th December, 2020.
- 2020 (11) TMI 716 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of Summon Order - seeking direction to Petitioner to tender his statement and adduce evidence through video conferencing, in relation to a summon issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - whether the current COVID-19 pandemic situation can ipso facto be cited as a ground to insist that the tendering of statement be done through video conferencing? - HELD THAT:- Concededly, the investigation is ongoing and the Respondent wants to unearth the role of the Petitioner in the alleged tax evasion by the Company. The previous conduct of the Petitioner, at the stage of inspection when the officers of the Respondents were visiting Bengaluru, demonstrates that the Petitioner consistently avoided recording his statement on one pretext or the other. Thus, having regard to the past noncooperative conduct of the ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 715 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - levy of interest at the rate of 18% from the date from which the excess amount was collected by the Petitioner from the buyers till the date of its payment - vires of Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST/HGST Rules - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the orders passed by this Court in Phillips India Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No.3737/2020] [2020 (6) TMI 626 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as well as M/s Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No.4131/2020] [2020 (10) TMI 1031 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No.4375/2020] [2020 (7) TMI 614 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the interest amount directed to be paid by the petitioner as well as the penalty proceedings are stayed till further orders. List on 07th December, 2020.
- 2020 (11) TMI 714 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - ex parte order of assessment - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It would be only more appropriate, as is also so submitted by Shri Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner approaches the appellate authority highlighting the issues raised before this Court, as also pointing out the errors apparent on the face of record, if any, enabling the authority to reconsider the petitioner’s case based on the material so placed. Shri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State/authority, states that petitioner failed to exercise his statutory right as envisaged under Section 62 of the Act, leaving no option with the authority to pass the order. On merits, we do not express any opinion and leave it to the wisdom of the appellate authority to consider all these ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 713 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - validity of Garnishee Notice - whether the Garnishee Notice issued by the 1st Respondent is in tune with the principles of natural justice? - HELD THAT:- As the Garnishee Notice came to be passed without hearing, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Garnishee Notice, issued by the 1st Respondent, however, leaving it open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law. Petition closed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 712 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty under Section 122 of CGST Act - case of the Petitioner is that, he has paid total GST liability of ₹ 4,69,92,664/- for the period of February 2018 to December 2018 and filed GST DRC-03, and having accepted the GST liability, interest and late fees, as per the provisions of CGST Act, imposing penalty of ₹ 4,27,19,192/- under Section 122(1) of CGST Act, AP GST Act, is illegal - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted that, Section 122 of CGST Act which deals with “Penalty for certain offences” states that, “wherever there is a violation, a taxable person shall be liable to pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees or an amount equivalent to the tax evaded or the tax not deducted under section 51 or short deducted or deducted but not paid to the Government or tax not collected under section 52 or short co....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 711 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Validity of SCN - Cancellation of GST registration - SCN was served upon the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why his registration would not be cancelled as the petitioner/taxpayer was found non-functioning/not existing at the principal place of business - It is the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice was vague - HELD THAT:- It is true that no hearing was given to the petitioner. It is also true that the order of cancellation is not a speaking one. However, the petitioner received such an order on February 14, 2020 and he has moved this Court in August, 2020. There are no reason to invoke a high prerogative writ and allow the prayer of the petitioner to set aside the order of cancellation in view of the provisions of Sections 30 and 107. Section 30 of the GST Act provides that a party aggrieved by an order of ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 710 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Levy of interest - belated filing of GST returns - Section 50 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the reply dated 21.2.2020 to the notice dated 7.2.2020, it is suffice to direct respondent No.1 to consider the reply and all the relevant facts as narrated therein, affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In case, the 1st respondent is of the opinion that compliance has not been made by the petitioner properly, appropriate reasoned order may be passed affording opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. Till then, adverse order, if any passed against the petitioner, shall not be given effect to. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (11) TMI 658 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Grant of retrospective registration with effect from 01.07.2017 for petitioner's Registration Certificate dated 07.06.2018 - TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- Whether at all the petitioner is entitled for a relief sought for in his representation, dated 14.09.2020 is concerned, it is for the fifth respondent to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in his representation, which according to him, enables the fifth respondent to validate the petitioner's registration from 01.07.2017 itself. The grounds raised by the petitioner in his representation, will have to be considered by the respondents on merits and in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions referred to by the petitioner. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents if th....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 657 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - Validity of assessment order - replies have not been considered by the respondents under the impugned assessment order - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the objections raised by the petitioner through their various replies, in which they have reiterated that they are ready and willing to produce books of accounts, were not considered in the impugned assessment order. But the impugned assessment order only based on the alleged deposition made by the petitioner before the Inspecting Officials that they are not maintaining books of accounts without any independent assessment. This Court has also perused and examined the various replies sent by the petitioner and as seen from the said replies, there is no admission on the part of the petitioner that they were not maintaining books of accounts at the time when ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 617 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - validity of e-way bill expired at time of detention - option for extension of period of e-way bill - Validity of notices issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act -- HELD THAT:- The classification in the table under R.138(10) is essentially between ‘over dimensional cargo’ and ‘other cargo’. In both the categories of cases, the cargo can be transported either by road or through multimodal shipment in which at least one leg involves transport by ship. The number of days which would count towards the validity period of the e-way bill, for cargo other than over dimensional cargo, would vary depending upon whether the distance traversed is upto 100 km or more. While one day validity is given for distance traversed upto 100 km, an additional day is granted for every 100 kms or part thereof travers....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 616 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration under the GST regime - closure of business or transfer of business - Section 30 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from the sequence of events narrated in the writ petition that the original cancellation of registration, on the ground that there was a closure/discontinuance of business, was an erroneous one, in that the petitioner had erroneously chosen the said reason instead of the actual reason, which was the transfer of business to an another entity. This is not a case where the petitioner changed his mind subsequently, and sought to insert a new reason in place of the old one, for the communication produced by the petitioner as Ext.P2 would clearly suggest that steps were taken by the petitioner almost immediately after the receipt of the order of cancellation of registration to make the correct....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 615 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Refund claim - Intermediary Services - Export of Services - vires of Section 168 of the CGST Act, 2017 - challenge primarily on the ground that no mandate can be provided for directing the lower quasi-judicial authority to treat the Circular / Instructions issued by the Board to be binding. HELD THAT:- Notice of motion for 08.09.2020.
- 2020 (11) TMI 574 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Time Limit for filing Form TRAN - 1 - carry forward the tax credit pertaining to pre-GST period to GST regime - Vires of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the parameteria provisions of the U.P. GST Rules provides for carry forward of tax or duty credit under any existing laws or on goods held in stock on the appointed day. The appointed day under the GST regime was 01.07.2017. Learned counsel for the Central GST and the learned Special Counsel for State GST could not inform as to whether any recommendation under sub - Rule (1 A) of Rule 117 was made by the Council and thereupon the Commissioner has extended the date for filing TRAN -1 form. They pray for and are granted three days' time to obtain complete instructions in the matter particularly with regard to the recommendations of the....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 573 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Best judgment assessment - Service of Demand Notices - petition dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue its appellate remedy against the assessment orders in question - HELD THAT:- During the course of hearing of another writ petition, where the same issue came up for consideration, this court had occasion to interact with the officers of the GST department of the State, who were familiar with the technical aspects of uploading orders of the State authorities on the common web portal. It then became apparent that the assessment orders were not being simultaneously uploaded on the common web portal and that the statements made before this court on the earlier occasion were as regards uploading of the assessment orders on the back-end web portal maintained by the State Government and not to the common web portal maintained by the GST Network. Application allowed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 572 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods alongwith the vehicle - seizure merely on the ground that invoice was found to be in the name of some other party - Section 129(1) (a) of the U.P. GST Act - HELD THAT:- The present petition is disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 3 by filing a fresh application for release under Section 129(1) (a) of the U.P. GST Act. In case, such an application is filed, the respondent no. 3 shall take a decision thereupon in accordance with law considering the documents that may be filed by the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed positively within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the application.
- 2020 (11) TMI 530 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Review of Order - It is the case of the petitioner that the dates shown in the order as date of issue of assessment order does not reflect the correct date on which the assessment orders were put up on the web portal of the Department and the actual date of publishing the order in the web portal was much later, and on the dates indicated in the Review Petition - HELD THAT:- The statement filed by the respondents that was relied upon while passing the judgment aforesaid, was filed on 19.08.2020. On receipt of the statement the petitioner had filed a reply to the same and the final hearing of the Writ Petition was on 29.09.2020. The contention now taken by the petitioner, as regards availability of material that would suggest that the date on which the Department had posted the details of the assessment order on the web portal are not corre....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 529 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Permission for withdrawal of petition - Release of refund of Input Tax Credit - export for the months of July and August, 2019 - petitioner states that procured goods had been exported under Section 16 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as zero rated supply without payment of IGST against LUT for the months of July and August 2019 - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for petitioner wishes to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to also challenge the two letters informing and fixing the date for opportunity of personal hearing. The present writ petition stands disposed of.
- 2020 (11) TMI 526 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - opportunity of hearing not provided - primary contention is that before passing Ext.P14 series of orders, the petitioner was not heard - whether there was actually a hearing extended to the petitioner or not? - HELD THAT:- Inasmuch as the impugned orders were passed without hearing the petitioner, the said orders cannot be legally sustained inasmuch as they have been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P14 series of orders and direct the 7th respondent to pass fresh orders in lieu thereof, after hearing the petitioner. I also make it clear that the 7th respondent shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction, and the orders passed by him shall reflect a consideration of each of those objections raised by the petitioner on jurisdi....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 524 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Refund of IGST - export of Ply wood other than commercial plywood classified under the Customs Tariff Heading 44129990 - Section 163 (3) (b) of the IGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is directed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner as reflected from shipping bills referred to above for sanctioning the refund claims and interest thereon. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the judgment. In case no action is taken, the officer concerned is liable to pay cost of ₹ 25,000/-, which will be recovered from the salary of the officer.
........
|
