|
Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 3229 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.
- 2021 (10) TMI 880 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Validity of SCN - Jurisdiction to issue SCN - validity of proceeding initiated without service of FORM GST-ASMT-10 - Section 74 of the JGST Act, 2017 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the impugned show-case notice creates a clear impression that it is a notice issued in a format without even striking out any irrelevant portions and without stating the contraventions committed by the petitioner i.e. whether its actuated by reason of fraud or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts in order to evade tax. Needless to say that the proceedings under Section 74 have a serious connotation as they allege punitive consequences on account of fraud or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts employed by the person chargeable with tax. In absence of clear charges which the person so alleged ....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 841 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rejection of application of the petitioner for refund - contention of petitioner is that no Tribunal has been constituted by the Central Government as envisaged under Section 109 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, and therefore, this writ petition is being filed - HELD THAT:- In their counter affidavit, the respondents shall specifically state what action has been taken by them in compliance of the directions aforesaid. It needs no iteration that the Appellate Tribunal is the last fact finding authority and the aggrieved persons are deprived of their valuable statutory right due to non-availability of that forum. It is being made clear that if no satisfactory reply/compliance to the aforesaid directions is reflected in the counter affidavit, this Court may be constrained to summon the authorities concerned. List after three weeks.
- 2021 (10) TMI 840 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Levy of GST or not - royalty paid for grant of mining lease - HELD THAT:- Though, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has urged that in the matters before the Supreme Court, an issue regarding constitutionality of Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been raised, but no such pleading has been raised by the petitioner in this petition. The matter requires consideration - List this matter after two months.
- 2021 (10) TMI 839 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of review application - review applications came to be dismissed for non prosecution - non-compliance with the directions issued - HELD THAT:- We fail to understand that what is now left to be pointed out. We are disturbed by the fact that its been more than two years but our directions have not been complied with. All that is required to be done is to open the portal and allow the original writ applicants to file declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 and GST TRAN-2 so as to enable them to claim the transitional credit of the eligible duties in respect of the inputs held in stock on the appointed day in terms of Section 140(3) of the Act. The Nodal Officer, D/5, E-Governance Branch, Rajyakar Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedbad is directed to personally remain present before this Court on 27.10.2021 at 11:00 a.m. - Post these matters on 27.10.2021.
- 2021 (10) TMI 838 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Refund of taxes paid under Central Goods and Services Tax as well as State Goods and Services Tax - evidence to prove the payment of tax by the petitioner, present or not - HELD THAT:- The conduct of respondents is not appreciable, still taking into consideration the transition phase of the new statute and the temporary glitches that are occurring as well as the fair submission made by the learned Government Pleader that, the amount shall be refunded, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to refund the amount of ₹ 12,26,064/-, due to the petitioner as refund, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petition allowed.
- 2021 (10) TMI 837 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of demand of GST - summary of show cause in Form GST-DRC-01 under Rule 142(1) - Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of personal hearing provided or not - Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The uploading or serving of summary of show cause in Form GST-DRC-01 under Rule 142(1) is not a mere formality, but it is mandated under the Rule, so that, the Assessee would have a chance of getting summary of show cause and to respond the same and without giving such a breathing time, on the very same day, that is, the date on which GST-DRC-01 notice, that is, summary of notice was uploaded, the impugned order was passed. This Court feel that the impugned order can not be sustained, accordingly, it is liable to be quashed - the matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2021 (10) TMI 836 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of regular bail - registration on the basis of fake and forged documents - irregular availment and utilization of ITC - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the facts and circumstances moreso, the fact that the Petitioner has been in custody since 27.11.2020 and there are as many as 23 witnesses, out of which none have been examined and the trial is likely to take time and the amount of GST said to have been evaded has already been recovered from Susheel Garg and Amit Garg and no amount of input tax credit has been credited in the account of the present petitioner and also since the petitioner was not named in the FIR and also since there are several debatable issues/arguments in the present case which have been elaborated hereinabove, and although the same would be finally adjudicated upon in the trial, this Court considers it fit t....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 835 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - adjudication of ownership of goods - Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The department can claim at the most that there was a hidden transaction between the 5th respondent and the petitioner due to which the State lost the tax due to it. The transaction during which interception of the goods were carried out was between the petitioner and the consignee in Ext.P2. If the department's assumption is acceptable, it could be assumed that there was an evasion of tax in the transaction between the 5th respondent and petitioner. However that transaction could be only prior to Ext.P2 invoice. No doubt it is for that alleged hidden transaction that evasion of tax was suspected. Be that as it may after Ext.P2 invoice was generated, there is no case that there is any suspected evasion of....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 834 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of Assessment order - works contractor - Direct respond to SCN not given, instead writing was sent to the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department and marking a copy to the fourth respondent - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that a quietus can be given to the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and ensuring that an opportunity of hearing in person is given to the writ petitioner as the SCN vide paragraph 8 clearly mentions that the writ petitioner should appear in person and explain. In other words, without going into the question as to whether all the assessees would be entitled to a personal hearing, i.e., leaving that question open, in the case on hand, as the fourth respondent in the SCN has opted to give a personal hearing to the writ petitioner, it is only appropriate that the writ petitioner is heard in person. The impugned order made by the fourth respondent, is set aside - Petition allowed.
- 2021 (10) TMI 833 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - allegation is that firm got registered on the basis of forged and fabricated documents to avail of input tax credit - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner is mere an accountant in one of the firms being run by Jarnail Singh accused. The reply of the State clearly illustrates that no specific role is attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the offence who merely was doing his duty as an accountant. Moreover, all the accused have been allowed regular bails by the different Courts. The offences being bailable triable by the Magistrate and in view of Covid 19 pandemic, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and in view of the period of incarceration impels this Court to allow the bail. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned - application disposed off.
- 2021 (10) TMI 803 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit - fake bills - compliance with the mandatory procedure under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 including Section 154, 157,167,172 etc. for valid commencement and continuation of the investigation into any offence qua the petitioners in respect of investigation - vires of section 69 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Section 69 of the GGST Act empowers the Commissioner to arrest a person, who has committed any offence stipulated in the said section if the Commissioner has reason to believe that the said person has committed any offence as stated in the said provision - it is revealed that the Commissioner can delegate his powers to his subordinate officer. It is contended by learned advocate for the applicants that even a....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 802 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - contention of the appellant is that they were not given an opportunity of personal hearing - Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Under Section 75(4) of the Act, it has been mandated that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted on the request made by the assessee or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person - In the case on hand, it cannot be disputed that a notice of personal hearing was given to the appellant, fixing the personal hearing on 04.12.2020. However, on 04.12.2020, neither objections had been filed nor the appellant appeared in person for the personal hearing, therefore, subsequent notice was issued on 05.12.2020, where, again the appellant was invited by the office of the respondent to....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 801 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of regular bail - Fraudulent availment of ITC - fake transactions - no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before arresting him - HELD THAT:- Notice of motion. List again on 28.10.2021 - In the meantime, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 03.08.2021; offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and he is no more required for custodial investigation, he is directed to be released on interim bail subject to furnishing his bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
- 2021 (10) TMI 800 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - filing of TRAN-1 credit denied - permission to file revised Form GST TRAN-1 manually or otherwise to carry forward credit - HELD THAT:- The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one treated by a Division Bench of this Court in UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE IT GRIEVANCE REDRESS COMMITTEE THE GST COUNCIL, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX MYSORE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX VERSUS M/S. AT AND S INDIA PVT. LTD., STATE OF KARNATAKA [2021 (5) TMI 363 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where it was held that while dismissing the present writ appeal, 30 days time is granted to the assessees to submit their GST TRAN-1 from today. Like cases should be decided alike, being the o....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 752 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - registration with GST department has been complied with or not - offence punishable u/s 132 of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is admitted fact that the applicant has given the undertaking to appear before the investigating authority on 08.10.2021 - as the respondent has submitted that as some other facts are also to be taken on the record and therefore, he has prayed for filing a status report. List on 25.10.2021.
- 2021 (10) TMI 688 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Application for amendment of the writ petition - seeking to have an order declaring Circular dated October 9, 2018 as ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - direction to amend the shipping bills filed by the petitioner under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The amendments, if allowed, would not change the original character to the writ petition - In such view of the matter, the application for amendment stands allowed. List the writ petition on December 14, 2021.
- 2021 (10) TMI 687 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Delay of 50 days in filing the review petition - refund claim - encashment of Bank Guarantees - HELD THAT:- The grounds urged by the review petitioners may be grounds of appeal but would not be grounds for review within the ambit and meaning of section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. No rehearing of a concluded matter is permissible while seeking review. There are no error apparent on the face of the record nor any documents which the review petitioners could not present at the time of hearing despite due diligence. Also there are no sufficient cause to rehear the concluded matter. Present is not a fit case for review - review petition dismissed.
- 2021 (10) TMI 636 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Refund of unutilized ITC - exports of goods which are having NIL rate of export duty - first proviso to section 54(3) of CGST/ SGST Act - HELD THAT:- Circular dated 20.09.2021 clarifies that only those goods which are actually subjected to export duty i.e., on which some export duty has to be paid at the time of export, will be covered under the restriction imposed under section 54(3) from availment of refund of accumulated ITC. Goods, which are not subject to any export duty and in respect of which either NIL rate is specified in Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or which are fully exempted from payment of export duty by virtue of any customs notification or which are not covered under Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, would not be covered by the restriction imposed under the first proviso to section 54(3) of....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 634 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Grant of default bail - constructive custody or not - complete charge sheet has not been filed by the investigating officer in the matter - submission of petitioner is that although petitioner has been released on interim bail in compliance of directions issued by High Power Committee but he shall be deemed to be in constructive custody of the Court - HELD THAT:- Custody means when a police officer arrests a person, produces him before the Magistrate and gets a remand to judicial or other custody, he can be stated in judicial custody when he surrender before the court and submits to its directions. As petitioner has been released on interim bail, so he cannot be treated in constructive custody, as his movements are not restricted as per directions of the Court - If a person who has been released on bail is treated in custody, then it will....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 633 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Provisional attachments of property - Section 83 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- In the decision in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. [2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the exercise of powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act and after elaborate consideration, laid down the manner and mode in which the powers are to be exercised. None of the stipulations specified in the aforesaid judgment are evident in the orders impugned in this writ petition. Thus there is non-application of mind to the purport of power exercisable by the second respondent under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The order impugned are liable to be stayed - there will be a stay of operation of Exts.P9, P9(A) and P9(B) attachment order for a period of 8 weeks.
........
|
