|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 16342 Records
-
2025 (7) TMI 469
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - extortion of money - evasion of GST - applicant is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to join the same as and when required - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the FIR appears to be lodged with an ulterior motive, arising out of a personal dispute and internal conflict within the company. The petitioner, is working as a receptionist only was assigned the job of engaging the visitors making them to meet the owner of the company, Mr. Ajay Aggarwal. The circumstances leading to the present FIR indicate that the complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the petitioner’s resistance and objection to such illegal and unethical conduct, including an attempt to coerce her into a sexual relationship and threats issued thereafter.
Further, the petitioner has no role in the alleged offence(s) and there is no recovery to be made from her, hence this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment, once the petitioner has given an undertaking in 12 of the petitioner that she is ready and willing to join the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
The petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction - bail application allowed - petition allowed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 468
Challenge to recovery notice in GST DRC 13 - closure of business as early as on January 2023 - unaware of the notice that preceded the impugned Assessment Order - HELD THAT:- This Court is inclined to direct the second respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's account, subject to the petitioner depositing entire tax due, without interest and penalty within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In case sufficient amount of balance is lying in the petitioner's account, the second respondent shall transfer the amount to the credit of the first respondent towards deposit, without prejudice the rights of the petitioner in the de nova proceedings - the petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the Notice in DRC 01, dated 25.11.2024 by treating the impugned Assessment Order, dated 17.02.2025 as addendum to the same.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 467
Challenge to impugned Audit Report along with the ADT-04 notice - permissibility of special audit as per Section 66 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that this is a special audit under Section 66 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Petitioner prays that the Petitioner may be given an opportunity of being heard after filing of a reply in respect of the special Audit Report.
This would be in consonance with the scheme of Section 66 of the CGST Act. Though, the Petitioner has missed the deadline for filing the reply, considering the quantum of demand being raised, it is deemed appropriate to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the present petition with liberty to the Petitioner for filing of a reply and an opportunity of being heard.
The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as aforesaid - Let the reply be filed to the Audit report, within 10 days from now. After the filing of reply, a hearing shall be granted and the GST Department shall proceed in accordance with law.
-
2025 (7) TMI 466
Challenge to impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 garnishee notice and notice issued u/s 78 of GST/SGST Act, 2017 for the assessment period April, 2018 to March, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2023 (2) TMI 1224 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner [2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], had set aside the impugned assessment order.
The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors [2022 (8) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (herein referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid.
As the DIN is not attached to the impugned proceedings except the proceedings of 15.05.2023, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of assessment, dated 02.02.2022, as well as the summary of the order of assessment, dated 01.02.2022. Consequently, the garnishee order notice of 15.05.2023 would also have to be set aside as the said garnishee is based on the aforesaid impugned proceedings.
This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings and remanding the matter back to the assessing authority for proper adjudication after adequate notice and opportunity being given to the petitioner.
-
2025 (7) TMI 465
Seeking an alternate prayer for provisional release of the goods in question - HELD THAT:- The Appellant will submit an application for provisional release of goods, within a period of one week. The Respondent will pass an order thereupon, after taking into consideration the decision placed on record by the Appellant. In case the order is adverse to the Appellant, it is open to the Appellant to take necessary action.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 464
Challenge to impugned order - impugned order vitiated by non-application of mind - non-consideration of detailed submissions canvassed by the Petitioner in its replies - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the case of Piramal Enterprises Limited vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2024 (6) TMI 489 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the impugned order after finding that there was no independent application of mind but the contents of a notice issued by the Service Tax Authorities was verbatim copied/borrowed by the VAT authorities.
The Petitioner has put forward several contentions, relying on at least nine precedents they claim support their position, as well as the Board Circular dated 20 September 2021. From the impugned order, it is observed that although there may be a reference to this Circular and the decisions, these have not been addressed. The impugned order does not specify why such decisions are irrelevant or distinguishable, nor why the cited Circular does not apply. This was expected of the adjudicating authority. The failure to consider the contentions raised or the precedents relied upon, combined with the cut-and-paste approach mentioned earlier, also suggests a lack of proper consideration, which invalidates the impugned order.
Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) which is similar to the corresponding provisions in the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST) provides that the proper officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by person chargeable with tax, determine the amount of tax, interest and a penalty equivalent to ten percent of tax or ten thousand rupees, whichever is higher, due from such person and issue an order - Section 75(6) of the CGST Act provides that the proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision. The emphasis of this provision is on the ‘basis of decision’. This means the emphasis is on the reasons that support the decision. Merely cutting and pasting the allegations from the show cause notice does not amount to giving any independent reasons after due consideration the assessee’s contentions or after due application of mind to those contentions.
The impugned order warrants interference on the ground urged - the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration and disposal of the show cause notice within three months of the uploading of this order - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (7) TMI 463
Challenge to impugned order and a notice in Form GST DRC-01 - non-application of mind on the part of the respondent - violation of principles of natural justice - time limitation - filing of appeal belatedly before the appellate Commissioner - HELD THAT:- This Court has come to rescue the persons like the petitioner on terms. In this case, at the time of filing of the appeal before the appellate Commissioner, the petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax. That apart, more than 25% of the disputed tax have been recovered during the course of time.
Considering the same, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondents to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice by treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (7) TMI 462
Belated filing of petition, long after the issuance of the orders - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that parliament amended Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services TAx Act, 2017, by inserting Section 16(5) of the Act vide Finance (No.2) Act 2024. The issue is now squarely covered in favour of the petitioner in terms of M/s.SJB Automobiles Private Limited Rep by its Director Mr.Siva Balakrishnan Vs The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore [2024 (12) TMI 330 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with the statutory amendment of Section 16 of CGST Act, this writ petition stands allowed.'
The impugned order stands quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (7) TMI 461
Challenge to petition alongwith summary order - blocking of ITC clamed - fictitious business entity/non-existent supplier - non application of mind by the respondent - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the materials, this Court can visualise the non application of mind by the respondent in arriving at a conclusion that M/s.Hindustan Unilever Limited is a non-existant Company. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order with terms imposed.
The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 04.04.2025 is set aside - the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (7) TMI 460
Challenge to assessment order passed for the Assessment Year 2017-18 - petitioner has availed Input Tax Credit as ostensibly remained un-utilised under the provisions of TNVAT, 2006 without following procedure under Section 140 of TNGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order passed by the respondent is quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to pass fresh orders de nova on merits and in accordance within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed amount as pre-deposit in cash.
The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as corrigendum to the notice that preceded the impugned order - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 459
Rejection of appeal order - mismatch of Input Tax Credit in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B and certain excess claim of ITC - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Considering the submissions made, it appears that the 1st respondent had dismissed the appeal at the threshold on the ground of limitation. According to the petitioner, the petitioner filed the rectification application on 25.11.2024 itself and the 1st respondent rejected the same vide order dated 06.02.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately preferred an appeal on 07.03.2025 and the delay of 67 days has occurred since the petitioner was pursuing the rectification application. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, appears to be genuine. Therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order.
The delay of 67 days in filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order dated 28.08.2024 is hereby condoned - The 2nd respondent/Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeal on record without insisting upon the limitation aspect, subject to the payment of 5% of the disputed tax demand as agreed by the petitioner in addition to 10% statutory pre-deposit, i.e totally 15% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the impugned assessment period, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 458
Levy of GST on transfer of rights - scope of supply - Jurisdiction to issue SCN - challenge to impugned order and SCN - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present petition remains no more res integra. In the case of Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industries and others Vs Union of India [2025 (1) TMI 516 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], it is held that GST would not be leviable on the assignment of lease hold rights of plot or the land allotted on lease by the industrial concern and building constructed thereon by the lessee or its successor (assignor) to a third party (assignee) on payment of lumpsum because such an assignment by sale and transfer of leasehold rights of plot for a consideration would be assignment/sale/transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property by lessee – assignor in favour of third party – assignee who would become lessee of GIDC in place of original allottee – lessee and such assignment would not be covered under scope of supply.
In the present case also, if the copy of the assignment deed dated 24.2.2021 at Annexure E at pages 81 to 85 is perused, it would be evident that what has been transpired is merely leasehold rights which were originally in favour of the petitioner now being transferred to M/s Janani Incast and nothing more. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this court, in the case of Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
The impugned order being ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction is hereby quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 457
Violation of principles of natural justice - though petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing, he failed to appear - SCN issued u/s 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the records, Exhibit-P3, Exhibit-P4 and Exhibit-P6 indicates that, though petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing on 06.01.2025, he failed to appear. Thereafter he has now turned around and stated that there is a violation of principles of natural justice in not granting an opportunity of hearing. Failure to avail an opportunity of hearing is different from not granting such an opportunity. When the latter amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, the former is a default on the part of the person who is proceeded against, which cannot be regarded as failure to grant an opportunity of hearing.
The contention of the petitioner that he had sought 15 days time for hearing is not entirely correct, as the objection filed by the petitioner reveals that he sought 15 days time to produce one record. The opportunity of being heard sought for by the petitioner was already granted to him with a date fixed as 06.01.2025. In such circumstances, the contention that there was violation of principles of natural justice while passing Exhibit-P6 order is not legally tenable.
The contention raised against Exhibit-P6 falls in the realm of disputed facts for which the remedy is to pursue the statutory remedies, in accordance with law.
Thus, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies available under law against Exhibit-P6, this writ petition is dismissed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 456
Challenge to order made by the First Appellate Authority - non-constitution of Tribunal - requirement of assessee to deposit 10% of the disputed amount of tax on filing the appeal and further 20% of remaining disputed tax, for the impugned order to be stayed - HELD THAT:- There was notification dated 16th August, 2024 made by Central revenue reducing latter deposit to 10%. Now, State revenue has correspondingly notified on 29th October, 2024. In the circumstances, the writ petition be disposed of as covered by order dated 16th February, 2024 with modification for deposit of 10% of remaining disputed tax for impugned order to remain stayed.
The submission made on behalf of petitioner regarding corresponding notification accepted reducing requirement of the deposit to 10% of disputed tax for impugned first appellate order to remain stayed. The deposit be made accordingly.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
2025 (7) TMI 455
Suppy or not - supply of goods or services - different types of transactions undertaken - classification of supplies - applicability of N/N. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) or 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) as amended relating to exemption for goods and services.
Supply of stationery items without consideration - HELD THAT:- The activity mentioned herein involves supply in the course or furtherance of business and is made for a consideration. Therefore, all the conditions stipulated for falling within the scope of supply as envisaged under Section 7 of the CGST Act are fulfilled in this case. In this regard, as per Notification No. 36/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 13-10-2017, we find that “Used vehicles, seized and confiscated goods, old and used goods, waste and scrap” supplied to any registered person by “Central Government, State Government, Union territory or a local authority” is subject to GST under reverse charge mechanism - the stationery items supplied by the applicant to various government departments and authorities without receipt of consideration in any manner do not fall under the scope of business as envisaged under Section 2(17) of the CGST Act, 2017. When the supply fails to fall under the scope of business as envisaged under the GST law, Section 17 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 stands applicable and accordingly.
Supply of stationery items for consideration - HELD THAT:- As per Section 7 (1) (a) of the CGST Act, 2017, Supply includes-(a) “all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business”. Supply of goods for a consideration, i.e., where amounts in money or otherwise are obtained, is a commercial transaction that squarely falls within the scope of Supply as envisaged under Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. Being a commercial transaction, it is also found that this is in the course or furtherance of business.
Facilitating the procurement of stationery as intermediaries - HELD THAT:- The applicant has stated that this activity is not done against consideration. They facilitate the procurement of stationery by various departments in their official capacity and no payment is received by them against such service. The activity tantamount to service but in so far as the same is not for a consideration, based on the logic explained in paragraph (a) above, it is opined that the said supply does not fall within the scope of Supply as envisaged under Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Levy of recoveries/ fines/ penalties for undue loss of stationery and supplies from departmental staff - HELD THAT:- The nature of activity here is that the applicants, in their official capacity, conduct inspection of the stationery supplied to various departments and in case of undue loss, initiate action against the responsible persons for recovery of loss and also to impose fine. Recovering the loss made to government or imposing fine for mistakes committed does not fall within the scope of Supply under Section 7. In order to be a supply within the meaning of this Section, goods or services or both should be supplied against a consideration. In the instant case, no such supply is made, but is just recovery of loss to Government and is not ordinarily within the purview of Supply under the Act. Now it has to be considered whether the activity falls under the scope of Schedule I or II of the CGST Act, 2017.
The service tax education guide issued in 2012 on advent of negative list regime of services explained that fines and penalties paid for violation of provisions of law are not considerations as no service is received in lieu of payment of such fines and penalties. It was also clarified vide Circular No.192/02/2016-Service Tax, dated 13.04.2016 that fines and penalty chargeable by Government or a local authority imposed for violation of a statute, bye-laws, rules or regulations are not leviable to Service Tax. The same holds true for GST also”. Hence, the activity does not fall under the scope of supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Levy of recoveries/ fines/ penalties from suppliers as liquidated damages, EMD/SD forfeiture for breach of contract etc. - HELD THAT:- As per Schedule II to the GST Act, “agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act” is a taxable activity. In so far as such a recovery/fine/penalty is made pursuant to a contract to do an act, to tolerate an act or to refrain from an act, the activity is taxable. It is found that, as reported by the applicant, such charges/damages/deposits are collected or recovered in pursuance to a contract - the taxability of such amounts received by the applicant can be decided only on a case-to-case basis, on examination of the specific contract from which the payment is received by the applicant.
Repair services for stationary-related equipment for other government departments - HELD THAT:- If the repair services are done for a consideration, or if done in the course or furtherance of the business of the applicant, the activity falls within the scope of Supply under Section 7 and if the same is done not for a consideration, the activity does not fall within the scope of Supply as per Section 7 of the Act. No blanket ruling can be given in this case without information on whether the services are done for a consideration or not.
Disposal of waste paper and printing supplies as scrap or otherwise or Auction thereof - HELD THAT:- The activity mentioned herein involves supply in the course or furtherance of business and is made for a consideration. Therefore, all the conditions stipulated for falling within the scope of supply as envisaged under Section 7 of the CGST Act are fulfilled in this case. In this regard, as per Notification No. 36/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 13-10-2017, it is found that “Used vehicles, seized and confiscated goods, old and used goods, waste and scrap” supplied to any registered person by “Central Government, State Government, Union territory or a local authority” is subject to GST under reverse charge mechanism - the disposal of waste paper and printing supplies as scrap or otherwise or Auction thereof falls under the Scope of Supply within the meaning of Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Sale of physical tender forms - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the sale of tender forms is made against a consideration. Tender notice is issued in the furtherance of business and sale of tender form is ancillary to such an act and in this case, is done for a consideration. Therefore, as per the ratio discussed in paragraph (b) above, we are of the opinion that such sales falls within the meaning of Supply as envisaged under Section 7 of the Act.
Sale of used motor vehicle - HELD THAT:- The sale falls within the meaning of Supply as envisaged under Section 7 of the Act.
Classification of goods - HELD THAT:- No Annexure is seen placed with the application and hence no ruling can be given in this regard.
Entitlement to avail ITC on all procurement of goods and services - HELD THAT:- No blanket answer is possible in this regard. Restrictions on availing ITC exist on account of the provisions of Section 17 of the CGST Act and Rule 42/43 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Whether the applicant is liable to reverse the ITC availed as on date? If yes, what is the reversal-From the submissions made by the applicant, it is evident that they have both taxable and non-taxable/exempted supplies? - HELD THAT:- Rule 42/43 of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates the formula for apportioning ITC already availed, (i.e., ITC eligible to be credited to electronic credit ledger) between exempted and taxable supplies and the manner of reversing the ITC attributable to supplies that do not attract GST. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that if the applicant has availed ITC on inputs or input services which are used 'partly for the purpose of any business and partly for other purposes' or 'partly for effecting taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and partly for effecting exempt supplies', they are liable to reverse the ITC availed by them. The second leg of the question is 'if so, what is the reversal'. The reversal is to be calculated as per the formula given in Rule 42/43 of the CGST Rules, 2017. No specific ruling can be given in this regard since the question is not in respect of items falling under Section 97 (2). The math may be done by the applicant themselves.
Whether the activities undertaken by the Department are covered by Notification 2/2017-CT as amended relating to exemption for goods or Notification 12/2017-CT as amended relating to exemption for services? - HELD THAT:- There is no possession of the exhaustive list of activities provided by them and therefore, this question cannot be answered owing to paucity of material.
-
2025 (7) TMI 404
Extension of period of limitation for issuance of SCN - Constitutional validity of Section 7 of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (Annexure P-2) whereby Section 168A is inserted in the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - insertion beyond the legislative competency - applicability of N/N. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-5) and 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure P-6) - HELD THAT:- The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023, dated 31.03.2023 & 28.12.2023, respectively, are already under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s HCC-Sew-MEIL-AAG-JV vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. [2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER].
Since the issues involved in this petition are already pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline, it is refrained from giving opinion with respect to either the vires of Section 168-A or aforesaid notifications as assailed in this petition - the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto, shall be binding on this case also.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 403
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Seeking for quashing and setting aside the ex parte order - HELD THAT:- The order impugned in the present writ petition reflects that letters fixing dates for personal hearing were duly sent to the registered address of the petitioner, scheduling hearings on 9th December, 2021, 23rd December, 2021, and 19th January, 2022, thereby calling upon the petitioner to appear before the adjudicating authority. However, despite receipt of such letters and/or notices, the petitioner failed to appear on the scheduled dates. As a consequence, and in view of the petitioner's continued absence, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass an ex parte order dated 21st January, 2022.
It is informed that order dated 21.01.2022 is appealable order. Therefore, admittedly, there exists an efficacious alternative remedy - petition dismissed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 402
Challenge to SCN and consequent order - vires of N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 - no reconciliation between GSTR-01 and GSTR-09 - Input Tax Credit has been claimed from dealers, return defaulters and tax non payers - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the Petitioner’s application for rectification was decided without granting a proper hearing, the matter deserves to be remanded to the concerned Authority to be considered afresh.
Let the rectification application be heard afresh by the concerned Authority, since clearly one of the grounds on which the demand has been raised in the impugned order for non-reconciliation of the GSTR-01 and GSTR-09 is that the GSTR-01 was not filed along with the reply to the SCN. However, a perusal of the record would show that the GSTR-01 was clearly available with the Adjudicating Authority itself, as is evident from the attachment to the DRC-07.
The rectification application filed by the Petitioner is restored to its original number. The order dated 30th July, 2024, rejecting the rectification application filed by the Petitioner is set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 401
Challenge to SCN and consequent order - vires of N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court in Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others [2025 (3) TMI 1308 - DELHI HIGH COURT], under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter holding that 'The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In response to show cause notices dated 04th December, 2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall file its replies within thirty days.'
There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made to the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN was issued prior to the said date. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
The impugned order is set aside - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (7) TMI 400
Challenge to assessment orders passed pursuant to the respective notices issued in DRC 01 and DRC 01A - petitioner not replied to the notice that preceded the impugned order for the Assessment Year 2022-23 - delay of 68 days beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court is inclined to come to the rescue of the petitioner partially on terms, subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the disputed tax over and above 10% already deposited at the time of filing of appeals. The entire amount shall be paid in cash from the Electronic Cash Register of the petitioner within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
........
|
9911796707
