|
Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2735 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 (5) TMI 334 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - Constitutional Validity of section 132 (1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - power of arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 to be exercised only after the proper assessment/ determination of liability - de-attachment of Bank Accounts of petitioner - Fraudulent availment of ITC - HELD THAT:- The concerned officer has on the basis of the information given so far by the Petitioner is in the process of identifying other key conspirators/ master mind in the fraudulent availment of ITC, the concerned officer has recorded her reasons to believe that Petitioner has floated the two firms with the core objective to defraud the Government Ex-chequer; that Petitioner is only doing paper transactions involving 66 Crores of revenue which is huge by any standards and, has authorized his arrest....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 333 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund of CGST alongwith interest - period from April, 2020 to May, 2020 - HELD THAT:- The concerned respondent authorities are directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for refund as stated in the memo of this writ petition, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to the facts of the case. Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (5) TMI 291 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - Validity of section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - power under Section 69 of the CST Act - arrest for alleged non-payment of GST and alleged illegal availment of ITC - HELD THAT:- The court having regard to factual position that the petitioners therein had responded to the summons and attended the dates, in the circumstances found that there could not have been justification to arrest the petitioner. Apart from that the court also found that there had not been any evidence about petitioner’s tampering with the documents or trying to influence the witnesses, observing that mere allegation is not sufficient. The court also went on to consider section 167 and had considered that under said provision a person cannot be kept in detention beyond a total period of 60 days where investiga....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 285 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of SCN - Carried forward Input Tax Credit in TRAN-1 from the era of Service Tax under Finance Act, 1994 to the era of GST - Eligible services or not - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the notice indicates that there was a verification of the Form TRAN-1 by the Audit Department of the GST and it was noticed that Cenvat credit had been availed on various services relating to investments in shares, debentures, mutual fund, securitization etc. The officer was of the opinion that since the receipts from the aforesaid avenues was exempted, the availment of the credit was itself not in order. The availment of Cenvat credit on services related to the provision of food, accommodation and travels was also questioned by the Officer on the ground that it is not eligible. The same goes with regard to the credit related to registry operations, custodi....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 262 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - Assessing Authority has noted certain discrepancies in the invoices accompanied by e-way bills - TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has replied to the Officer on 23.12.2020 specifically requiring a copy of the statement relied upon by the respondent. In the show cause notice, the Assessing Authority states that the supplier had admitted in his statement recorded by the Central GST Authorities, stating that they had neither received any inward nor engaged in outward supply. The officer thus proposes to arrive at a conclusion that the transaction was not genuine and the petitioner was engaging in bill trading. In response, the petitioner has specifically sought the statement recorded by the third party dealer reserving his right to cross examine the dealer as we....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 261 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rejection of request for carry forward of Input Tax Credit (ITC) into the Goods and Service Tax regime - argument by Revenue is that there had been several opportunities for rectification of the mistake as time had been extended till 31.03.20201 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the error is seen to be inadvertent, constituting a human error. The Revenue does not dispute this either. Moreover, the era of GST is nascent and thus a rigid view should not be taken in procedural matters such as the present one. The petitioner is thus be permitted to transition the credit. After all, the consequence of such transition is only the availment of the credit and not the utilization itself, which is a matter of assessment and which can be looked into by the Assessing Officer at the appropriate stage - The third respondent, i.e., Deputy Commissioner ....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 259 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - seeking to extend the date of payment towards full and final settlement of tax dues under the GST amnesty scheme - HELD THAT:- It is unfortunate that despite seeking adjournments on 04.02.2021 and 09.03.2021, on the ground that petitioner wishes to file a rejoinder on two occasions, no rejoinder has been filed till date - Cost not imposed. Petition dismissed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 258 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of Central GST and State GST - use of motor cycles, as contract carriages - N/N. 17 of 2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Section 2(22), (25) and (26) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- The position in law, as laid down in Notification 12 of 2017, specifically Sl. No.15 (b), would apply in regard to the taxability of the transaction, and the petitioner as well as other similarly placed stakeholders appear to have acquiesced with this position. The apprehensions levelled by the petitioner to the effect that other operators are adopting differing positions in regard to the taxability of business receipts stands assuaged, the respondent stating that necessary action would be taken to ensure that there is compliance, across the board. Petition closed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 195 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Uploading of an order of assessment under Section 62(1) as well as the summary thereof - HELD THAT:- The instant summary order dated 14.03.2020 must statutorily have been accompanied by a speaking order and it is only such speaking order that would be liable to be challenged, as there would be no reasoning on the basis of which the summary of order would be amenable to challenge. The counter at paragraph 13 states that the prayer for refund sought by the petitioner, for excess payment of ₹ 5,46,641/- and 1,35,584/- are found to be correct and orders had been passed by the State Tax Officer, Thiruvallur Assessment Circle on 12.02.2021, as the assessee is assessed in that circle. The aforesaid Assessing Officer has not been arrayed as a respondent and it is only the Deputy State Tax Officer, Sriperumbudur Circle, who has been arrayed as a respondent. Petition closed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 194 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of attachment order - Seeking interim relief sought, that is for lifting of attachment of bank account pending appeal - service of speaking order duly made or not - HELD THAT:- Service by e-mail is thus an accepted mode of service and in the present case, I am given to understand by the learned Government Advocate that the order has been served by e-mail. I am not inclined to go into this disputed question of fact, since the petitioner, at this juncture, would state that it wishes to file a statutory appeal challenging order of assessment. The petitioner may do so within a period of four (4) weeks from today in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in a series of judgments, viz., IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER] and IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 169 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - generation of eway bills of 16 firms by concealing the identity of the real purchaser and real seller tax evasion and revenue loss - offence punishable under sections 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act and the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- A close perusal of the complaint prima facie reveals that there are 16 firms, which were part of scrutiny by the investigating agency. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicant is involved in misusing the registration numbers of these 16 firms and the total tax evasion by generating eway bill without revealing the true identity of the real purchaser or real seller is stated to be ₹ 96,047253/-. The applicant is also ready and willing to deposit some of the amount as per the instructions received by learned advocate Mr.Pandya from the applicant. Taking into consideration the ....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 168 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - requirement of compliance with mandatory pre-deposit - Section 107 of the Orissa Goods and Service Tax Act (OGST Act), read with Rule 108 of Orissa Goods and Service Tax Rules (OGST Rules) - HELD THAT:- Section 107 of the OGST Act is a mandatory provision and there is no discretion with the appellate authority to waive the requirement of pre-deposit. Even this Court cannot direct the appellate forum to do so contrary to the statute - It is noticed that under Section 107 of the OGST Act upon making a pre-deposit of 10% there is an automatic stay of the balance 90% of demand, which cannot, in the circumstances, be said to be unfair or unreasonable. In that view of the matter the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition - Petition dismissed.
- 2021 (5) TMI 167 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioners - fake ITC - TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- The contention of the respondents herein that the revival of registration is conditional upon the petitioner satisfying tax dues and substantiating its claim of ITC, is misconceived. What is sought for by the petitioner is revocation/revival of registration only, and in the guise of considering the application for revocation, the authorities cannot embark upon the process of assessment - An assessment would have to be made by the authority in terms of Section 73 or other applicable provision after following the procedure set out therein, and it is only in the course thereof that the officer may consider and decide questions of leviability of tax and claim of input tax credit. Thus to state that registration will not be revived since the petitioner has incorre....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 166 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - Intention to evade GST - petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent did not consider the reply of the petitioner and demanded the petitioner to pay tax and penalty for release of the vehicle - HELD THAT:- The 1st respondent had acted mechanically without application of mind to the operational convenience of the transporter - Also for the bonafide action of the transporter, the 1st respondent cannot mulct the petitioner with tax and penalty. The petitioner cannot be said to have any intention to evade tax if any mistake is, for the sake of argument without conceding it, has been committed by the transporter - The finding of the officer, the 1st respondent, in the impugned order that the transaction involving the petitioner was 'suspicious' and that the transporter was found 'without proper....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 162 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of Bank accounts of petitioner - despite repeated requests, no information was disclosed by the authority concerned as to why the GST authority exercised such powers - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There are no proceedings against the present petitioner under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74 of the Act. There is no reason therefore, to invoke section 83 against the writ applicant and proceedings. Since the proceedings are initiated by the authorities in connection with the third parties, invocation of powers under Section 83 are not available with the respondents. Therefore, the order of the provisional attachment in connection with the bank account No.3785569992 of M/s. Global Corporation be interfered with. It is also necessary to note that despite of due service to the bank the bank has chosen not....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 94 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - valid and genuine purchases or not - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the anticipatory bail application does not bring out any material or reason to believe that any such inference is being drawn or is being sought to be drawn by the revenue authorities against the applicant, presently. Merely because the applicant has been called upon to participate in the inquiry against M/s. G.K. Traders, does not involve an automatic accusation against the applicant and it also does not involve the risk of his arrest. At present, the applicant claims that he had made genuine purchases from the said M/s. G.K. Traders for which he had made payments and had thereafter sold the goods to third parties. Accordingly, leaving it open to the applicant to lead such evidence before the revenue authorities, at present, no real apprehension is found to exist of the applicant being arrested - Application rejected.
- 2021 (5) TMI 88 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of amount collected as penalty - impugned order does not stipulate even basic details such as the date and time of hearing - no reasons set out for the conclusion arrived at by the authority - HELD THAT:- Though the show cause notice and the impugned order are entirely non-speaking and contain blanks, which vitiate them in full, the statement of the driver recorded in Form-GST MOV-01 contains the observation that 'the goods moved from Chennai to Ambur, which is unregistered place of buyer as per invoices the destination place is mentioned as Ambur but as per E-Way bill delivery address mentioned as Bhosari, Maharashtra.' - The detention order under Section 129(3) of the Act also contains the reasons for detention of the goods as aforesaid. Liberty is granted to the respondent to issue notice afresh, hear the petitioner and ....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 85 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
Non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit before filing of appeal - Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner shall make the mandatory pre-deposit @ 10% on the amount of tax in dispute as envisaged under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 within the period of 15(fifteen) days from today with the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (5) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Non-compliance with the previous order - HELD THAT:- The speaking order will be passed before the next date of hearing. The statement of Ms. Verma is taken on record. List the matter on 06.05.2021.
- 2021 (5) TMI 52 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - validity of issued summons - Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has made out a prima facie case for wrongful assumption of jurisdiction. List the matter on 20.07.2021.
........
|
