|
Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2980 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 (8) TMI 41 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Grant of alternate prayer for interim bail - bail sought on the ground of medical condition of petitioner’s father - Sections 132(1)(b) & (c) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Sections 132(1)(i) and Sub Section (5) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The petitioner’s father is suffering from Pleural Extension with T.B. Chest and for that reason, the angiography was postponed. Angiography was also postponed as the patient having altered sensorium with depression - considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner and the medical condition of petitioner’s father and the fact that he requires treatment, it is deemed proper to allow the prayer for interim bail. The prayer for interim bail is accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on interim bail for a period of two months,....... + More
- 2021 (8) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Levy of IGST - repaired Goods re-imported into India between July 2017 till date - Aircrafts - IGST on fair cost of repairs and cost of insurance and freight in terms of Serial No. 2 of N/N. 45/2017-Cus. - HELD THAT:- The aim of the Policy is to transform the Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. “Efficient litigant” means ensuring that good cases are won and bad cases are not needlessly persevered. Litigation should not be resorted to for the sake of litigating. Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been repeatedly affirming that the propensity of Government Departments and Public Authorities to keep litigating is one of the reasons for docket explosion. Mindful of the said factor and the rising litigation, Government has framed the National Litigation Policy t....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1257 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Validity of three adjudication orders made passed exparte - challenge on account of the fact that for one tax period and for one dispute, there can only be a single adjudication order - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, three periods for which the orders had been passed are overlapping. Notice dated 22.12.2020 was issued by respondent no.2 for the period July 2017 to March 2018. It covers the entire period and dispute being sought to be adjudicated in the other two notices as well. At the same time, it is found that by notice dated 22.12.2020, next date fixed was 05.01.2021 but the petitioner could not participate in the same on account of the spread of pandemic COVID-19. Also, in that regard, it has been brought to our notice that realizing the difficulties from the spread of pandemic COVID-19, the Government had itself issued an order dated 01........ + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1254 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of bail granted - allegations of tempering of evidence and influencing the witnesses - fake and non-existing firm - HELD THAT:- It is trite law that considerations relevant at the time of grant of bail are different than the considerations at the time of cancellation of bail after the accused has remained in custody. Admittedly, the investigation had started in the year 2018 and was continuing when the petitioner was arrested on 9th February, 2021 and was granted bail on 9th March, 2021 - It may be noted that the petitioner was already in custody and despite having been granted bail on 9th March, 2021 till date complaint has not been filed and in case the petitioner was in custody in the event of the complaint not being filed in 60 days, he would have been entitled to default bail. The finding of the learned CMM was that the ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1253 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - pre-condition for filing the appeal - Demand of tax of ₹ 1,89,810 and equivalent amount of penalty imposed in the penalty order - HELD THAT:- Identical issues have been raised in M/S ABHISHEK SALES VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS [2020 (1) TMI 515 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has proceeded to direct the petitioner to deposit 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute in accordance with Section 112 (8) of the Act within three weeks from the date of order and in which event, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall remain stayed till disposal of the writ petition. All the respondents are granted eight weeks' time to file counter affidavit on behalf of State respondents. The rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. List thereafter - it is directed that the petiti....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1210 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Seizure and detention of vehicle - Ambulance van - detention on the ground that the vehicles did not carry e-way bills - case of the petitioner is that the vehicles are purchased not for resale but for the own use and business purpose of the petitioner and in which case, there was no necessity of regenerating an e-way bill - HELD THAT:- When the respondent No.3 has issued a show cause notice for completing the assessment for levying tax with or without penalty, let the petitioner file reply to such show cause notices. It would be open for the Assessing Officer to carry out the assessment, in accordance with law, after considering the reply of the petitioner. However, considering the prime defence of the petitioner that he is not a registered dealer nor is he dealing in purchase and sale of vehicles and the ambulances have been purchased b....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1161 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - Validity of SCN - SCN asking the petitioner to submit their reply within 30 days - HELD THAT:- The power of judicial review is to scrutinise the processes through which the jurisdiction is taken by the competent authorities in consonance with the law, but not the decision itself. Thus, the Courts always exercise restraint in entertaining a Writ Petition filed against the show cause notices. In the present case, the impugned show cause notice provides all the details regarding allegations. The petitioner is asked to submit their representations/defence or documents to defend their case by availing the opportunity. Therefore, the petitioner is expected to defend their case before the competent authority by submitting their explanations/defence statements and thereafter, the authorities are bound to consider the....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest on delayed payment of tax - Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent on 03.11.2020, which is yet to be disposed of and such representation is entertainable under the provisions of the Act and the Authorities Competent is duty bound to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. The first respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 03.11.2020 and pass an order on merits and in accordance with law and by affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1158 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of motor vehicle - RANGE ROVER motor vehicle transported from Coimbatore to Thiruvananthapuram as 'used personal effect' of the 2nd respondent - detention on the ground that the same was transported without the E-way bill - requirement of e-way bill for personal effect goods - Rule 138 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It must be remembered that goods that are classifiable as used personal and household effect falls under Rule 138(14) (a) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and are exempted from the requirement of e-way bill. The 2nd respondent had purchased the vehicle after payment of IGST. A temporary registration was also taken apart from the motor vehicle insurance. The decision in the case of KUN MOTOR CO. PVT. LTD. AND VISHNU MOHAN VERSUS THE ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1147 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Release of seized goods - levy of penalty - penalty levied although the matter is yet to be settled finally - goods are properly obtained through legitimate means or not - HELD THAT:- This Court having heard learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the materials on record, is of the view that it is the mandate of law that at the time of release, not only the value of the goods but also the penalty as may be payable as per the authorities are liable to be paid for which the owner of the goods may have to execute a bond with security thereof and, as such, in the present case, directing the applicants to execute bond and furnishing Bank Guarantee of the amount mentioned in the said communication cannot be said to be beyond the purview of law. The applicants shall execute a bond and furnish Bank Guarantee in respect of the amount mentioned in the communication - Application allowed.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1145 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of personal hearing not provided - specific case of the petitioner is that while settling the bill amounts received, departments had in fact deducted the tax payable - HELD THAT:- The petitioner's place of business was inspected by the enforcement wing officials on 10.09.2020. Based on the same, show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2020. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 24.12.2020. However, without granting an opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned orders were straightaway passed. This is on the face of it as violative of Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The matter is remitted to the file of the respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1057 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction or authority to block any input tax credit - Reason to believe - purchase with respect to which, adjudication proceedings are underway against the petitioner in accordance with Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017 - manner in which an amount may be determined to be due and recoverable from the petitioner - Rule 86A(1)(a)(i) of the State/Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Plainly, there can be no dispute that the Act prescribes the manner for determination of any tax not paid or short paid. Section 74 of the Act provides for determination of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud etc through the process of adjudication. Section 78 of the Act further mandates that any amount that may be determined under Section 74 of the Act may not be recovered for a period of three months from the ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1037 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - sufficient time was not afforded to the petitioner to represent his case - ex-parte order - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, it is opined that the order is bad in law. Here is violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case - also the order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences. Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1033 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - sufficient time was not afforded to the petitioner to represent his case - ex-parte order - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, it is opined that the order is bad in law. Here is violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case - also the order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences. Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (7) TMI 998 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of bank accounts and immovable properties - petitioner has already deposited the amount of deposit for filing the appeal - Section 83 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent to the effect that the petitioner firm is liable to pay the tax with interest and penalty, in aggregate ₹ 1,09,61,102/- and the department has attached the movable and immovable properties to the tune of ₹ 75,48,541/-, which include the attachment of two bank accounts i.e. of Union Bank of India account, having balance amount of ₹ 4,16,050/- and Canara Bank account with balance of ₹ 5,386/- and two other immovable properties worth ₹ 55,37,123/- and ₹ 15,89,982/- respectively, the Court is of the opinion that the interest of the Revenue would still remain substantial....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 992 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Grant of Regular Bail - input tax credit - fictitious firms - fake and bogus invoices - section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Court looking to the seriousness of the offence and lack of change in circumstances, rejected the application of the applicant. In the considered opinion of this court, after the aforementioned orders were passed rejecting the applications, no substantial change in circumstances or any exceptional aspect has been pointed out by the applicant, which would warrant his release on bail under the provision of section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Application dismissed.
- 2021 (7) TMI 988 - KERALA HIGH COURT
GST registration - registration was granted but at a later date i.e., 09.03.2018 - inability to comply with the requirements in terms of the statutes for the period from 01.07.2017 to 09.03.2018 - HELD THAT:- There are merit in the submission that the fresh registration on 09.03.2018 having been obtained by the petitioner in terms of the interim order issued, an opportunity for statutory compliance for the period prior to 09.03.20218 ought to be provided. At the same time, there is substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that it is technically impossible to make changes in the GST portal for providing opportunity for an individual assessee to comply with the statutory requirements from a date prior to its registration. The only possible manner in which the issue can be resolved is for the petitioner to pay tax for th....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 966 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - non-payment of interest - delayed filing of returns GSTR-3B - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that due to non payment of the interest liability for the period from October, 2018 to April, 2020 for delayed filing of returns GSTR-3B, the petitioner is required to make the payment and only thereafter, as submitted by Mr. Keyal, the registration of the petitioner shall be restored by the respondent GST. On the other hand, the submission of Ms. Bhattacharjee that due to striking out of the registration of the petitioner he could not collect the contractual dues from the various organizations against the contractual job also cannot be disbelieved. Let the petitioner approach the concerned authority more specifically the respondent No. 3 along with an application to permit the petitioner to pay the interest liability in installment as a special case keeping in view the pandemic situation arising out of Covid-19 - Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (7) TMI 926 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Seizure of heavy vehicle - Ashok Leyland trucks - e-way bills for these heavy vehicles not present - it was asserted that the goods were being brought within the State by contravening the provisions of Tripura State General Sales Tax Act, 2017 - intent to evade tax - HELD THAT:- Superintendent of Taxes has adopted a procedure which is wholly irregular. In the show cause notice dated 15th May 2021, he had not elaborated the ground that the e-way bills did not carry the reference to the temporary registration numbers duly certified by the State RTO authorities, a ground which he raised in subsequent communication dated 20th May 2021. The petitioner, therefore, did not have opportunity to meet with these grounds. Further, he has raised a demand for unpaid tax with penalty and sought to recover the same from the consignee - This is wholly irr....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 925 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund claim - petitioner was not heard by the appellate authority before passing the impugned order - email regarding personal hearing was sent to the wrong email address - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The contentions of learned counsel for petitioner is correct inasmuch as the notice was sent to the wrong email address. The appeal is remanded back to the Joint Commissioner, Appeals - I, Central GST, Delhi for a de novo adjudication. The Joint Commissioner, Appeals - I, Central GST, Delhi shall decide the matter in accordance with law by way of a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
........
|
