|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 11248 Records
-
2024 (4) TMI 717
Disparity between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns - error occurred on account of reflecting an amount of Rs. 59,430.68/- each wrongly towards CGST and SGST instead of IGST - HELD THAT:- On examining the petitioner's reply dated 17.03.2023, it appears prima facie that the disparity was on account of wrongly specifying higher amounts in the GSTR 3B returns as regards output CGST and output SGST. This aspect was not duly taken note of while issuing the impugned order. At the same time, it should be noticed that the impugned order was issued in June 2023 and the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
The impugned order calls for interference albeit by putting the petitioner on terms. Therefore, the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon being satisfied that the above mentioned amount was received, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (4) TMI 716
Pre-show cause notice - impugned proceedings has been issued by the second respondent - proper Officer and adjudicating authority as contemplated under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act or not - HELD THAT:- The respondents have conducted an inspection on the petitioner's premises. During the inspection, they found that during the period from 22.09.2017 to 20.08.2019, the petitioner company has effected outward supply of taxable goods viz., certain grocery items, under the unregistered brand name, but, they have not paid the appropriate GST and not fulfilled either one of the conditions prescribed in the Notification No.27/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 22.09.2017 to avail exemption. Therefore, the impugned proceedings has been issued.
As per the Circular dated 09.02.2018 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Central Government of India, the officers of Director General of G.S.T. (Intelligence) shall exercise the power to issue show cause notice. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings has been issued by the incompetent authority - Moreover, the impugned proceedings is only a pre-show cause notice.
The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 664
Service of SCN - Breach of principles of natural justice - intimation and SCN uploaded on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the tax proposal was confirmed only because the petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice by enclosing relevant documents. Therefore, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be permitted to contest the tax demand on merits, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms - the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
The impugned order dated 23.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the aforesaid period, the petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice - Petition disposed of by way of remand.
-
2024 (4) TMI 659
Rectification petition - Validity Of Order passed - discrepancy between the GSTR 3B return - belated filing of GSTR 1 by the Supplier - Petitioner unable to upload the reply on the portal - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record a certificate dated 31.10.2023 from Fivestar Impex India Private Limited stating that the supply was made under invoice dated 01.11.2017. A certificate from Prabhakaran & Associates, Chartered Accountant is also on record. The said certificate provides the details of invoice dated 01.11.2017 for a total value of Rs. 18,82,000/-. The e-mail dated 18.10.2023 is also on record. These documents were not taken into account while issuing the impugned order. For such reason, the order impugned herein calls for interference.
Therefore, the order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by enclosing all relevant documents. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.
The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs.
-
2024 (4) TMI 658
Validity Of assessment order - No opportunity of personal hearing - breach of principles of natural justice - difference in outward turnover between the books of account and various returns - HELD THAT:- From the impugned order, it appears that this request was not entertained and the order was issued on 31.12.2023. Although the order refers to a personal hearing notice issued on 31.12.2023, there is nothing on record to indicate that such personal hearing notice was issued. On examining the impugned order with regard to turnover discrepancy as between the different returns, it is noticeable that the petitioner explained the difference in its reply dated 28.07.2023 by pointing out that the lower amount was inadvertently reported in the GSTR 1 statement, which was subsequently rectified by filing the annual return. This aspect has not been noticed in the impugned order.
Thus, the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit additional documents in support of its reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of additional documents from the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs.
-
2024 (4) TMI 657
Validity Of Order Passed - documents submitted by the petitioner were disregarded - manufacture of alcoholic beverages - show cause notice issued - non payment of GST - limitation period - HELD THAT:- The operative portion of the impugned order, extract reveals that the assessing officer took into account the evidence placed on record, including the licence issued by the Excise Commissioner, the licence cum manufacturing agreement and the statements of Smt.N.Nalini and Shri.R.V.Ravikumar. Upon appraisal of such evidence, materiality and weight was assigned to such evidence while drawing conclusions. In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in these facts and circumstances.
The impugned order is dated 11.12.2023 and this writ petition was filed in January 2024. As of the date of filing, the limitation period had not expired. As on date, the condonation period is on the verge of expiry. Thus, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be permitted to present a statutory appeal.
Therefore, W.P.No. is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to present a statutory appeal within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such statutory appeal is presented within the aforesaid period, the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the same on merits without going into the question of limitation. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.10388 of 2024 is closed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 656
Validity of assessment order - Violation of Stay Order against the operation of a notification extending the period of limitation - Jurisdiction of Central GST authorities since the petitioner is assessed to the State Tax Authorities - Cross Empowerment - HELD THAT:- The issue regarding cross-empowerment and the jurisdiction of the counterparts to initiate proceedings when an assessee has been allocated either to Central Tax Authorities or to the State Tax Authorities was examined in detail by this Court in Tvl.Vardhan Infraastructure's case [2024 (3) TMI 1216 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
After examining the provisions, this Court has concluded that in the absence of notification issued for cross-empowerment, the authorities from the counterpart Department cannot initiate proceedings where an assessee is assigned to the counterpart. Therefore, the impugned Order-in-Original No.24/2023-GST, dated 26.12.2023 passed by the respondent is quashed.
However, liberty is given the State authorities to proceed against the petitioner in terms of the observations contained in the order passed by this Court in Tvl.Vardhan Infraastructure's case [cited supra].
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 655
Denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Proof of movement of Goods (E-way bill) not produced - Validity of Order passed - No reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand - show cause notice issued alleging that the petitioner had wrongly availed of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the petitioner's reply, it appears that the petitioner submitted original tax invoices, the ledger account pertaining to the supplier concerned, bank statement and relevant GSTR returns. The petitioner does not appear to have submitted e-way bills, lorry receipts, weighment slips and the like to establish actual movement of goods. On examining the impugned order, it appears that the tax proposal was confirmed largely on the ground that there was no proof of actual movement of goods. By taking into account the nature of documents submitted by the petitioner, which include the bank statement showing payments made to the supplier, the GSTR 2A indicating the availability of ITC, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to produce relevant documents to prove actual movement of goods. As a condition for remand, however, it is also necessary to put the petitioner on terms.
Thus, the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration on condition that the petitioner remits 20% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit additional documents within the aforesaid period to establish actual movement of goods. Upon receipt of additional documents from the petitioner and on being satisfied that 20% of the disputed tax demand was received, the 1st respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of additional documents from the petitioner. As a consequence of the impugned order being set aside, the order of attachment is raised.
The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 654
Validity Of Order passed u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“the Act”] - Demand - show cause notice issued proposing to cancel the GST registration - HELD THAT:- Since no show cause notice was issued prior to passing of impugned order, on the said technical ground alone, this order is liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly quashed.
It is clarified that it would be open to the respondents to pass an appropriate order after giving a proper show cause notice and an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of contentions of either party and the impugned order has been set aside solely on the ground of infraction of principles of natural justice. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved
Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
-
2024 (4) TMI 653
Validity Of assessment order passed - SEZ unit - Supply of services without charging GST since it was a zero rated supply - turnover inadvertently reported under the column taxable value in GSTR-1 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record the relevant tax invoice. Such tax invoice indicates prima facie that the supply was made to a SEZ unit and that it consequently qualifies as a zero rated supply. The GSTR-3B return of the petitioner is in line with the supply being zero rated. It is also noticeable from the invoice and returns that the supply pertained to the July quarter of assessment period 2017-18. This was during the nascent stage of GST implementation.
Thus, I am of the view that this is an appropriate case to provide an opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration by the assessing officer.
The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within a maximum period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by enclosing all relevant documents.
W.P. is disposed of on the above terms.
-
2024 (4) TMI 652
Maintainability of Writ Petition since GST Appellate Tribunal not constituted - Order Appealable u/s 112 of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017 - Statutory benefit of stay - Non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal as required u/s 109 - HELD THAT:- Taking into account the aforesaid Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 dated 03.12.2019 issued by the Government of India and subsequent clarification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST Policy Wing) vide Circular No.132/2/2020 dated 18th March, 2020, we deem it proper in the interest of justice to dispose of this writ petition in the following terms, with the consent of the parties:-
(i) Subject to verification of the fact of deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, or deposit of the same, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub Section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST/OGST Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the CGST/OGST Act, for the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed.
(ii) The statutory relief of stay on deposit of the statutory amount, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be open ended. For balancing the equities, therefore, the Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal u/s 112 of the CGST/OGST Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office. The appeal would be required to be filed observing the statutory requirements after coming into existence of the Tribunal, for facilitating consideration of the appeal.
(iii) In case the petitioner chooses not to avail the remedy of appeal by filing any appeal u/s 112 of the CGST/OGST Act before the Tribunal within the period which may be specified upon constitution of the Tribunal, the respondent-Authorities would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.
With the above liberty, observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2024 (4) TMI 620
Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - power to arrest - it was held by High Court that in view of the specific statement by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is no apprehension of arrest, the impugned order on the face of it requires an examination. Hence, the operation of the impugned order is stayed.
HELD THAT:- Delay condoned.
Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 02.02.2024.
-
2024 (4) TMI 619
Jurisdiction - appropriate forum - HELD THAT:- Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having regard to the nature of confiscated goods and bearing in mind the perishable nature of the same, the petitioners are permitted to move the High Court for expeditious interim relief in the matter.
SLP disposed off.
-
2024 (4) TMI 618
Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent, beyond 24 days of the condonable period of limitation under Section 107(4) of the TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that substantiative right of the petitioner to redress his grievance by way of appeal cannot be curtailed particularly, when the amount due towards tax liability has been recovered from the petitioner on 01.12.2022. Over and above, the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs. 1,15,372/- on 27.12.2022 along with the appeal filed beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 (4) of the TNGST Act.
Be that as it may, since the appeal has been filed along with the pre-deposit on 27.12.2022 and considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 11,53,720/- has already been recovered from the petitioner on 01.12.2022, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case, for a direction to the second respondent to consider the appeal and dispose of the same. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to consider the appeal and dispose of the same on merits without reference to the period of limitation.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 617
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner - cryptic order - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 07.02.2024 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is devoid of merits and without any justification, which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order dated 15.02.2024 cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (4) TMI 616
Violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioner submits that Petitioner had filed a detailed reply, however, the impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - Seeking stay of the operation of impugned order - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 25.10.2023 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents, not clear and unsatisfactory, which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order dated 30.12.2023 cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (4) TMI 615
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner - cryptic order - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 01.02.2024 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is devoid of merits and without any justification, which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order dated 30.03.2024 cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (4) TMI 614
Challenge to SCN issued in respect of assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24 - ingredients of Section 74 are not made out - HELD THAT:- The petitioner submits that the last date for submitting the replies expires on or before 15.04.2024 and the hearing is scheduled on 10.04.2024. In view of the filing of these writ petitions, it is just and appropriate that these time lines be revised to enable the petitioner to respond meaningfully to the show cause notices.
The petitioner shall reply to the respective show cause notice on or before 29.04.2024 - Upon receipt of the petitioner's reply, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including by way of personal hearings - The respondent is further directed to consider all contentions raised by the petitioner objectively and not in a pre-determined manner by taking note of the observations in this order.
The petitions are disposed off.
-
2024 (4) TMI 613
Violation of principles of natural justice - personal hearing was not provided after the petitioner's reply to the SCN - impugned order does not contain any reasons for rejecting the petitioner's reply - HELD THAT:- Although the document indicates that the petitioner had checked the box for no personal hearing, the statutory mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of applicable GST enactments is that a personal hearing should be provided either if requested for or if an order adverse to the tax payer is proposed to be issued. In this case, it should also be noticed that the petitioner's requested for personal hearing under e-mail dated 05.12.2022, which the respondent says was not received.
Also, the order does not contain any reasons for rejecting the petitioner's reply. Since these findings are not supported by reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable.
The impugned order dated 28.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (4) TMI 612
Irregular availment of input tax credit - specific details have not been mentioned in the SCN - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice for the financial year 2019-20 and 2020-21 within 30 days from today.
Petitioner shall appear before the Sales Tax Officer (Ward-1, Zone-1) who has issued the notice and is adjudicating the same on 15.04.2024 at 12.00 (Noon) for clarification/query if any. Said officer shall thereafter adjudicate the notice in accordance with law.
........
|
