|
Advanced Search Options
GST - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 4004 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 and Decision etc.
- 2022 (5) TMI 1239
Seeking release of detained goods - appealable order or not - Section 129 (1)(b)/129 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with IGST Act - HELD THAT:- An order under Section 129 (1)(b)/129 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with IGST Act, has been passed on 14.05.2022, pursuant to the impugned notice. The order is appealable under Section 107 of the Act, 2017. The petition is dismissed.
- 2022 (5) TMI 1238
Demand and Recovery u/s 74 - Cross state adjustment of unutilized input tax credit - input service distributor (ISD) - modality in claiming adjustment of unutilized input tax credit is objected to by the Revenue on the premise that such a device to facilitate other units of JSW Steel Ltd. located in other States to claim input tax credit arising in the State of Odisha is contrary to the statutory mandate - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that JSW Steel Ltd., public limited company, has units located in different States including the State of Odisha with its Head Office at Mumbai. The Head Office at Mumbai is registered as ISD bearing GSTIN 27AAACJ4323N2ZF. It is also registered as normal taxpayer being GSTIN 27AAACJ4323N3ZE in the State of Maharashtra. No doubt JSW-Company from its Head Office at Bombay had applied and participated in the tend....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1237
Validity of SCN - Denial of Input Tax Credit - complete mismatch between the supplier and the petitioner - mismatch rectified or not - Section 42(3) of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- After receipt of the show cause notice, if at all the petitioner wants to rectify the mismatch between the petitioner and the supplying dealer, the supporting documents to substantiate that the output tax had been paid by the supplying dealer at their end should have been procured and filed along with the reply submitted by the petitioner, which they failed to do. Therefore, the technical reason that under Section 42(3) it should have been communicated at the earliest point of time and therefore the show cause notice cannot be treated as communication intimating the mismatch between the supplier and the petitioner, cannot be countenanced. Therefore, on that ground....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1236
Maintainability of appeal - condonation of delay in filing appeal - requirement of mandatory pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- Since this Court had directed the Appellate Authority to exclude the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the litigation in W.P.(C) No.2963 of 2018, and the said judgment became final, the Appellate Authority was bound to abide by it. Failure to abide by the binding directions in the said judgment has rendered the impuned order perverse. Requirement of mandatory pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner is alleged to have been invoked, the said matter ought to have been considered by the Appellate Authority. Once the entire tax and penalty imposed on the petitioner and secured by the Bank Guarantee was fully satisf....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1185
Seeking grant of Bail - availment of input tax credit - floatation of bogus firms and by issuing bogus bills - HELD THAT:- The evidence collected during the course of investigation clearly points towards complicity of the petitioners, who have committed a colossal fraud of about Rs.1.80 crores. Such like huge loss is virtually an attempt to shatter the economy of the country. While noticing that the petitioners are habitual offenders, this Court does not find any ground for grant of bail to the petitioners at this stage. Both the petitions, as such, are dismissed.
- 2022 (5) TMI 1184
Seeking grant of regular bail - availment of fraudulent input tax credit - bogus/fake firms - criminal conspiracy - HELD THAT:- Considering the above background and custody of the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the conclusion of trial is likely to consume considerable time, as only two prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total thirty four prosecution witnesses, therefore, further detention of the petitioners may not serve any useful purpose, who are presently confined in judicial custody after their arrest. Apart from it, the material witnesses are police officials and officials of Excise Department and presently, there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. Without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, it is ordered that the petitioners be released on regular bail i....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1138
Refund of IGST - Separate application was not filed - treatment of shipping bill as refund application - export of goods - whether Circular No. 37/018-Cus dated 09.10.2018 is ultra virus the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 or not - Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- A separate application for refund was not required to be filed. - the shipping bills would operate as a refund application as envisaged under Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Section 16 of the IGST Act, as also Rule 96(1) of the CGST Rules. Interest on Delayed Refund - HELD THAT:- Once the petitioner had taken steps to move the Court and notice was issued in the writ petition, the respondents were, in a sense, forewarned that statutory interest would kick-in - notice in this petition was issued on ....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1137
Validity of SCN - show cause notice challenged on the ground that the mandatory requirement of pre-show cause notice consultation - Rule 142 (1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Court ruled that the requirement of pre-show cause notice consultation, as set forth in paragraph 5.0 of the master circular, was mandatory, as it was also in line with an earlier instruction dated 21.12.2015. It is noted that with effect from 15.10.2020 i.e., after the impugned show cause notice was issued, Rule 142(1A) has undergone a change, inasmuch as the word ‘shall’ has been replaced with ‘may’. As to what would be the impact of the amendment need not be considered by us in this case, as admittedly the show cause notice was issued prior to 15.10.2020 i.e., on 21.05.2020 - having regard to the positi....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1136
Refund on the exports made by the petitioner - Prescribed procedure - Mistake in GSTR-3B returns - details itself have not been received from GSTN portal to the designated system of the customs - input tax credit - zero rated supply - It is the specific case of the petitioner that though the petitioner had correctly declared the details in the monthly returns in Form GSTR-1 regarding the exports made by the petitioner on payment of tax by debiting the input tax credit, a mistake was committed by the petitioner in GSTR-3B under Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The refund of tax/duty paid on exports has been long recognized under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Central Excise Rules, 1944 and later under the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. These Rules have been incorporated under the GST regim....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1078
Maintainability of appeal - period of limitation - case of the petitioner is that the order dated 26.11.2018 was uploaded on common GST portal and, therefore, in terms of the Removal of Difficulties order dated 25.6.2020, the date of service of the order shall be considered as 31.8.2020 and limitation shall start from the aforesaid date - HELD THAT:- The Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in M/S J.K. Infratech vs. Additional Commissioner & Anr. [2022 (3) TMI 909 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. In view of the Removal of Difficulties order dated 25.6.2020 and the fact that the order dated 26.11.2018 was uploaded on the common GST portal, the order dated 26.11.2018 would be deemed to have been served on the petitioner on 31.8.2020. The limitati....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1077
Levy of GST - royalty paid for undertaking mining operations in respect of minor minerals - HELD THAT:- The petitioner shall submit reply to the show cause notice dated 23.03.2022 which is under challenge herein and the proceedings pursuant to the said show cause notice shall go on, however, till the next date of listing no final orders shall be passed by the authority concerned. Two weeks' thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.
- 2022 (5) TMI 1076
Revocation of cancellation of registration of petitioner - it is alleged that the appellant did not carry any business from the declared place and the documents filed by the appellant in support of the same are not correct - HELD THAT:- The procedure adopted by the authority while cancelling the registration was thoroughly flawed. Admittedly, when an inspection was conducted by the officers of the department, one of the person, who represented to be the receptionist of the building affirmed that one Mr. Dilip Kumar Agarwal, who was the power of attorney agent of the appellant, Mr. Rohit Varma, used to come to the premises and carried on certain business activities. Nevertheless, the said receptionist could not recognise Mr. Rohit Varma whose photograph appears to have been shown to the said receptionist - The proper course that should hav....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1075
Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - breakdown of vehicle - non-extension of the validity of the e-way bill - intent to evade tax or not - according to the writ petitioner the vehicle transporting goods had broken down and on account of which, there was delay and there was no willful intention to evade payment of tax - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the bona fides of the writ petitioner has to be tested on the documents, which were available on record. Firstly, it is found that the tax invoice has been raised by Bhaskar Steel and Ferro Alloy Pvt. Ltd. dated 7th September, 2019. There is no dispute as regards the quantity and description of the goods. The said vendor had raised the eway bill dated 7th September, 2019 as the goods were to be despatched from SRMB Srijan Pvt. Ltd. to the writ petitioner, who had its registered office ....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1074
Levy of penalty - rectification of mistake - input tax has been wrongly availed or utilized - Section 161 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Section 127 of the Act which has some importance deals with power to impose penalty in certain cases. It states that where the proper officer is of the view that a person is liable to a penalty and the same is not covered under any proceedings under Section 62 or Section 63 or Section 64 or Section 73 or Section 74 or Section 129 or Section 130, he may issue an order levying such penalty after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing such person. In the instant case, Form GSTR-3A was issued on 21.07.2020 for not filing the returns within the time prescribed. On 13.08.2020, a notice came to be issued under Rule 100(1) of CGST and SGST Rules, 2017/APGST Rules, 2017 read with Section 62(1) of the GGST Act, 2....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1073
Validity of enquiry proceedings - Learned Single Judge Bench while setting aside the levy of GST on Penalty amount, allowed to continue to initiate enquiry proceedings - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The learned Judge rendered her finding that 'post 01.07.2017, there can be no levy of GST on the amount of penalty', on 05.01.2021, whereas, the appellants obtained the order of interim stay with respect of GST on penalty, only on 24.03.2021 i.e., much later than the order of the learned Judge. Therefore, the said interim order subsequently obtained, cannot be applicable to the facts of the present case and the order of the learned Judge holds good as on 05.01.2021, which warrants no interference. However, it is made clear that there is no bar for the appellants in proceeding with the enquiry as against the respondents, after issuing show cause notices afresh and providing opportunity of hearing. This writ appeal stands disposed of.
- 2022 (5) TMI 1022
Seeking release of detained goods and vehicle - generation of second E-way bill - HELD THAT:- It is admitted to the parties that the goods in question originated from Panipat and were being transported with valid invoice from Panipat to Nepal but due to restriction imposed on account of COVID-19 pandemic, as specifically mentioned in paragraphs 14, 16, 17, 27 and 28 of the writ petition, the goods were unloaded at Gorakhpur and after the arrangement of another vehicle was made under prevailing situation of COVID-19 pandemic, the goods were transported to Nepal. Since the time gap was much, therefore, a second e-way bill was generated so that the goods may reach to its destination at Nepal. There is absolutely no dispute that the goods in question were dispatched by the petitioner no.1 from Panipat (Haryana) under valid invoice and valid p....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1021
Refund of unutilized balance of input tax credit - nil rate of tax/exempt supply - rejection on ground that levy of Nil Rate of Tax on exported goods, i.e., “Iron Ore Fines” falling within the fold of Code No.26011142 specified under Second Schedule of the Export Tariff appended to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 does not qualify for refund of GST paid in view of Clause (i) of Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the OGST/CGST Act - Section 54 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - period 1st June, 2019 to 31st October, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The export of “Iron Ore Fines” even though attracts Nil Rate of Tax, in view of Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the Petitioner would be entitled to refund on such export transactions. In view of Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54(3) of t....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 1020
Review of order - Levy of penalty - grounds for review are that the imposition of penalty by the authorities is not automatic and the same can be imposed only when there is a fraud or willful intention to defraud the revenue - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the argument that was advanced at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition was with regard to inclusion of VAT regime for the purpose of deciding the tax to be paid under Section 10(1) of GST Act. In the Review Petition, it is now urged that Section 10 encompasses Section 73 and 74 of GST as well and in the absence of any fraud, the authorities erred in invoking Section 74 of the GST Act and imposing 100% penalty. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition does not anywhere refer to the plea now taken, though such plea was available at the time of filing of the ....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 974
CENVAT Credit - substance of the dispute relates to the payment by the assessee of the service tax component pertaining to manpower and the like services received by the assessee partly for the quarter ending March 31, 2017 and partly for the quarter ending June 30, 2017 long after the appointed date of July 1, 2017 and claiming cenvat credit therefor - HELD THAT:- In terms of Section 140(1) of the Act of 2017, a qualified registered person is entitled to take the amount of cenvat credit carried forward in the return relating to the period immediately prior to the appointed date as furnished by such person under the existing law. In other words, the essence of Section 140(1) of the Act of 2017 is that if a matter is reflected in the return for the relevant period, due credit therefor may be taken as long as the return has been filed in ac....... + More
- 2022 (5) TMI 863
Maintainability of petition - it is alleged that the petitioner did not deposit 20% amount as directed by the High Court within 15 days - workable proposal given by the petitioner was for a period of 5 years - Cancellation of the GST Registration of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in M/S RAM SINGH WORK CONTRACTOR THRU PROPRIETOR RAM SINGH VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER GRADE- 2, COMMERCIAL TAX AYODHYA AND ANR. [2022 (1) TMI 1247 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has already interfered in the matter and admittedly the petitioner has also deposited the amount on 04.02.2022 as was required to be deposited which admittedly has been received by the Department on 19.02.2022 as per the statement given by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions and the fact that in terms of Section 80 of the ....... + More
........
|
