|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (7) TMI 273
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - cancellation for the reason of auto-generated details of your inward supplies for the period from 13.09.2022 to 20.09.2022 - HELD THAT:- Considering that the grievances in this writ petition is for a direction to revoke the cancellation of the GST registration and on payment of the tax amount due to the petitioner and also taking note in M/S. W.G. RESORTS (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS [2022 (9) TMI 1668 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] covers the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to restore the GST registration of the petitioner on filing the return along with the deposit of the statutory dues by the petitioner in accordance with the applicable Rules.
The revocation of the cancellation of GST registration shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible but not later than 25 days from today and the respondent No. 3 shall intimate the petitioner as regards the outstanding statutory dues as payable so as to enable the petitioner to file return, if any. It is made clear that similar benefit is granted to the petitioner subject to the payment of all the dues including prior to cancellation of GST registration.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 272
Maintainability of petition - petition dismissed on the ground that an effective alternate remedy is available to the appellant as against the order of adjudication passed by the adjudicating authority by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Tax (Appeal) - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that the rule of not entertaining an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when a statutory appellate remedy is available is not rigid rule but an exception can be curbed out for the said rule and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions have curbed out such exceptions.
It is not in dispute that the appellant was given adequate opportunity to put forth its submissions even prior to the show cause notice when statements were recorded and after the show cause notice was issued, reply was submitted and the matter was adjudicated following the provisions under the Act - it cannot be stated to be a case where there has been violation of principles of natural justice.
There are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Bench - appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 271
Challenge to order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner - appeal belatedly filed by the petitioners - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, it is found that the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled on the ground of non-filing of returns. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had been adopting dubious process to evade tax. Taking note of the fact that the suspension/revocation of license would be counterproductive and works against the interest of the revenue since, the petitioner in such a case would not be able to carry on his business in the sense that no invoice can be raised by the petitioner and ultimately would impact recovery of tax, the respondents should take a pragmatic view in the matter and permit the petitioner to carry on its business.
It is found from the submissions made by the respondents that unless, the petitioner files its returns, the respondents cannot determine the final liability.
Having regard to the aforesaid and taking note of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhankar Golder [2024 (5) TMI 1262 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], it is proposed to set aside the order dated 6th August 2024 cancelling the registration of the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner files its returns for the entire period of default and pays requisite amount of tax and interest and fine and penalty. As a sequel thereto, the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 21st March 2025 is also set aside.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 270
Challenge to assessment order - discharge of tax liability and interest after suffering impugned assessment order - settlement of case under amnesty scheme - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner has also discharged the tax liability and interest, Court is inclined to balance the interest of the revenue as also the petitioner by remitting the case to the first respondent re-consider the impugned order insofar as the imposition of penalty under Section 74 of the respective GST enactment alone.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 269
Challenge to impugned order which preceded the SCN - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits, after considering the order, that came be passed on 12.02.2025, pursuant to the Show Cause Notice, dated 15.03.2024.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 268
Violation of principles of natural justice - proper service of SCN or not - SCN were issued prior to passing the Impugned Order under Section 73 (9) of the State Act or not - determination of tax as well as the Order attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DCR-01 and Summary of the Order in GST DCR-07 can be said to be the Show Cause Notice and Order respectively or not - impugned orders under Section 73 (9) of the State Act is in conformity with Section 75(4) of the State Act and is in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
HELD THAT:- The Proper Officer is mandated to issue a SCN only under specific circumstances as outlined in Section 73. Therefore, the SCN must clearly state the reasons and circumstances justifying its issuance under this section. Only then can the recipient effectively respond, particularly if they wish to challenge the applicability of Section 73. Section 73(9) requires the Proper Officer to determine the tax, interest, and penalty after considering the representation. Section 73(2) and 73(10) are interconnected, while Section 73(10) allows passing the order within three years from the due date of the annual return, Section 73(2) mandates that the SCN must be issued at least three months before the deadline. Furthermore, a combined reading of subsections (1) to (4) of Section 73 shows that the legislature has made a clear distinction between a Show Cause Notice and a Statement. Even if a Statement is issued under Section 73(3), a separate and proper SCN is still required.
From a perusal of Rule142, it would show that in addition to the Show Cause Notice to be issued under Section 73 (1) and the Statement of determination of tax under Section 73 (3), there is an additional requirement of issuance of a Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and the Summary of the Statement in GST DRC-02. The natural corollary from the above analysis is that the issuance of the Show Cause Notice and the Statement of determination of tax by the Proper Officer are mandatory requirement in addition to the Summary of Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and Summary of the Statement in GST DRC-02.
The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Nkas Services Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (2) TMI 1157 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] held that a summary in GST DRC-01 cannot replace a proper SCN. Similarly, in LC Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (8) TMI 84 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the Honble Karnataka High Court emphasized that issuing a proper SCN is essential before the recovery of interest or penalty under the Act.
The Court holds that merely attaching a tax determination order to the summary in DRC-01 does not amount to valid initiation under Section 73. The summary is only supplementary to a full SCN. Thus, the impugned orders, having been passed without a proper SCN, are in violation of Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a).
Whether the determination of tax as well as the order attached to the Summary to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and the Summary of the Order in GST DRC-07 can be said to be the Show Case Notice and Order respectively? - HELD THAT:- As per Section 2(91), a Proper Officer is the Commissioner or someone entrusted by him. Therefore, unless these documents are duly authenticated by the Proper Officer, they fail to meet the statutory requirements and are rendered invalid and unenforceable. Section 73 of the Act requires that notices and order be issued by the Proper Officer but it does not prescribe the mode of authentication outside Chapter III of the Rules. Since no specific rule under Chapter XVIII (relating to Demand and Recovery) governs authentication, a regulatory gap exists. Given the critical importance of authentication by the Proper Officer, the Court held that, until proper rules or notifications are issued by the Board to address this gap, Rule 26(3), which requires digital or e-signature, must be applied by default. This ensures that any notice, statement or order issued under the Act maintains its legal validity and enforceability.
On the question of whether the impugned orders under Section 73(9) conform to Section 75(4) of the State Act and is according to the principles of natural justice, the Court observed that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice did not mention any date of hearing, leaving the relevant column blank. The petitioner was merely asked to submit a reply, without being offered a cleared opportunity for personal hearing.
This Court also notes that the impugned order contravenes Section 75(4) of the Act which mandates that the impugned order contravenes Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates that a reasonable opportunity of hearing must be provided either when an adverse decision is contemplated or when a written request is made by the assessee. In the present case, although the DRC-01 summary specifies the date for filing a reply, it leaves the fields regarding the date and time of personal hearing as “NA”. In a situation where no reply is submitted, the Proper Officer cannot proceed to pass an adverse order without granting an opportunity of hearing, as doing so would render the safeguards under Section 75(4) ineffective and violate principles of natural justice.
The impugned order dated 19.12.2023 is interfered with and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 267
Dismissal of rectification application filed by the petitioner - entitlement to ITC - HELD THAT:- Having perused the impugned orders and the amendments to Section 16 of the TNGST Act / CGST Act, 2017 in the year, it is opined that the petitioner has made out a good case for interference, although the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no right to work out the appellate remedy in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will gain some rigor in favour of the petitioner.
However, it is noticed that the rectification application filed by the petitioner against the assessment order dated 15.08.2024 has been rejected summarily without any discussion. Therefore, there is no other option but to quash the order dated 11.03.2025, impugned in W.P. (MD) No.16344 of 2025, with a direction to the respondent to pass a fresh order after considering the submissions of the petitioner on merits.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 266
Rejection of application for rectification - thogh the petitioner replied to SCN, the impugned order states that the petitioner has not replied to the same - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has made out a case for interfering with the impugned order, as the impugned order clearly records that the petitioner has not replied, even though the petitioner has indeed replied on 22.01.2025, which has been duly acknowledged in Form GST DRC 06.
The impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state, before passing final orders, the reply of the petitioner shall be considered and the petitioner shall also be heard.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (7) TMI 265
Dropping of penalty - petitioner has voluntarily paid the payment of penalty - HELD THAT:- The facts are not disputed that the petitioner had violated the conditions prescribed under Section 129 of the respective GST enactments. Therefore, the petitioner was indeed liable to be proceeded under Section 129 of the respective GST enactments and however, the question is as to whether the penalty that is imposed is to be justified or lesser penalty is to be imposed.
Reading of the Section 129 indicates that lesser penalty can be imposed. Considering the fact that there is no dispute that the petitioner has indeed exported the goods, it is opined that the export incentive cannot be denied for technical and venial breach of provisions of Section 129 of the respective GST enactments as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd vs. State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT]
Under these circumstances, although the petitioner has an alternate remedy, this Court is of the view that there is no point in relegating petitioner to work out its remedy by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, as export incentives are not to be denied, although there may be certain technical and venial breach by exporter.
This Writ Petition is allowed, by directing the respondents to appropriate Rs. 25,000/- itself from the amount that was already paid by the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to adjust the balance amount against the future tax liability of the petitioner.
-
2025 (7) TMI 264
Blocking of Electronic credit ledger of the petitioner - before passing the impugned order, pre-decisional hearing was not provided to the petitioner nor does the impugned order contain any reason to believe as to why it was necessary to block the Electronic credit ledger - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In K-9-Enterprises [2024 (10) TMI 491 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the following points were answered in favour of the petitioner- assessee by holding that 'The aforesaid facts and circumstances are sufficient to come to the unmistakable conclusion that in the absence of valid nor sufficient material which constituted ‘reasons to believe’ which was available with respondents, the mandatory requirements/pre- requisites/ingredients/parameters contained in Rule 86A had not been fulfilled/satisfied by the respondents- revenue who were clearly not entitled to place reliance upon borrowed satisfaction of another officer and pass the impugned orders illegally and arbitrarily blocking the ECL of the appellant by invoking Rule 86A which is not only contrary to law but also the material on record and consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.'
In the instant case since no pre-decisional hearing are provided/granted by the respondents before passing the impugned order, coupled with the fact that the impugned order invoking Section 86A blocking of the Electronic credit ledger of the petition does not contain independent or cogent reasons to believe/accept by placing reliance upon reports of enforcement authority which is impermissible in law, since the same is on borrowed satisfaction as held by Division Bench, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
The concerned respondents are directed to unblock the Electronic credit ledger of the petitioner immediately upon the receipt of copy of this order, so as to enable the petitioner to file returns forthwith - the impugned order is quashed - petition allowed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 263
Taxability - Subsidised Canteen Charges - Eligibility to Claim Input Tax Credit.
Taxability of Subsidised Canteen Charges - HELD THAT:- Coming to Treatment of Contract and Regular Employees in Canteen GST Exemption, under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, any factory employing more than 250 workers is mandated to provide and maintain a canteen for the use of workers. Importantly, the definition of “worker” in Section 2(1) of the Act includes any person employed directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor) to work in a manufacturing process. Thus, the obligation to provide canteen facilities extends not only to employees on the rolls but also to contract labour engaged in factory operations. There is no distinction in the statutory language that exempts employers from extending canteen benefits to contract workers.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NTPC Ltd. v. Karri Pothuraju & Others [2003 (8) TMI 595 - SUPREME COURT] held that contract workers employed in the premises of the principal employer fall within the scope of “worker” under the Factories Act and are entitled to statutory welfare measures, including canteen facilities.
From a GST perspective, CBIC Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 clarifies that any perquisite provided by an employer in terms of a contractual obligation (including those arising from statutory mandates) is not a “supply” under Section 7 of the CGST Act. Therefore, once canteen facilities are extended as part of legal obligations applicable to all “workers”-whether regular or contractual-the perquisite assumes the character of employment-related welfare and cannot be taxed, even if a partial cost recovery is made.
Therefore, excluding contract employees from the GST exemption would create an artificial and unlawful classification contrary to the spirit of the Factories Act and the judicial interpretation of “worker.” The legal and policy framework clearly supports uniform treatment of all workers, whether permanent or contract, when it comes to statutory canteen facilities.
Eligibility to Claim Input Tax Credit - inward supplies used in the canteen for supplying food to the employees - HELD THAT:- The Proviso to Section 17(5)(b)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017 allows Input Tax Credit (ITC) where the provision of food or beverages is a statutory obligation, and it does not make ITC eligibility conditional upon the manner in which consideration, if any, is received from employees. Whether the employer bears the entire cost, or recovers it partially or fully from employees, has no bearing on ITC entitlement. The canteen facility as previously discussed arises from the employer-employee relationship and qualifies as a perquisite under that relationship. The law does not require that such services be provided free of cost, and the availability of ITC remains independent of whether the transaction results in reimbursement or not. The eligibility for ITC comes purely by virtue of the fact that the provision for canteen facility is a statutory obligation and there does not seem to be any ground to disallow the ITC benefit, provided the facility is in pursuance to a statutory obligation and that GST liability has not been passed on to the employees of the company.
Thus, full ITC on inward supplies used in the statutory canteen is admissible, irrespective of whether the applicant recovers any portion of the food cost from its employees.
-
2025 (7) TMI 206
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Cancellation of the Petitioner’s registration under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Vague and bereft SCN - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice refers to Section 29(2)(e) and states that registration was obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. Although a time limit was granted to file a reply and the Petitioner was informed that if he failed to appear for a personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case would be decided ex parte, the show cause notice at Exh-B does not specify this appointed date or time.
Merely quoting a Section and alleging that registration has been obtained through fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts in a show cause notice is never enough. The noticee must be given an idea of what the alleged fraud, misstatement, or suppression of facts was. Only then will the noticee be able to understand the allegations against them and respond effectively.
Regarding the alternative remedy, the objections are typically entertained and the parties are directed to pursue the statutory remedies available. However, it is well established that in cases of a gross breach of principles of natural justice, petitioners should not be relegated to the alternative remedies. The concern is not primarily with the final decision but with the fairness of the decision-making process itself. Any process that is not underpinned by natural justice renders the final decision susceptible to challenge. This stands as a notable exception to the rule of not entertaining petitions where effective alternative remedies are available.
The impugned order is set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 205
Challenge to pre-show cause notice issued in Form GST DRC-01A, threatening to invoke proceedings u/s 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 in respect of the tax period 2019-21 - HELD THAT:- Noting that the petitioner seeks to bring the pre-show cause notice dated 19th July 2024 to a logical conclusion and considering the fact that the consideration on the pre-show cause notice is pending for nearly a year, at this stage it would be prudent to direct the proper officer to decide on the pre-show cause notice on the basis of the response filed by the petitioner and if the proper officer is of the view that the pre-show cause notice need not to be proceeded, the proper officer should drop the proceedings. On the contrary if he is of the view that a notice u/s 73(1) or 74(1) of the said Act should be issued, he shall forthwith issue the same.
Considering the peculiar facts and noting that the matter has been pending before this Court and noting that the pre-show cause notice remains outstanding for a year, in the event the proper officer is of the view that the pre-show cause notice is required to be issued u/s 73(1) of the said act, the petitioner shall be entitled to benefit of the Scheme introduced under Section 128 of the said Act provided the petitioner complies with all formalities and applies before the authority within 48 hours from the date of issue of such notice.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (7) TMI 204
Violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioner had no opportunity to meet with the allegations - vague SCN - fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts - cancellation of the Petitioner’s Registration - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner on instructions submitted that for a period of three months from today, the accumulated ITC will not be utilized.
The impugned orders are set aside but the Respondents are granted liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice as proposed, within four weeks from today. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that a response will be filed within four weeks of receiving the show cause notice. The show cause notice must be disposed of within four weeks of the Petitioner filing his reply to the same.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 203
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order of assessment is an ex-parte order without considering the stand of the petitioner - suppression of turnover - invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- The order u/s 73(9) read with Rule 142(5) of the Central/Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act and Rule, 2017 has been passed after the annual return furnished by the petitioner for the financial year 2018-19 was selected for scrutiny. The assessing authority noticed the suppression of turnover, availment and utilization of input tax credit wrongly and delayed payment of tax. The liability on these accounts were quantified under the provisions of Section 73(1) of CGST/BGST Act.
In respect of suppression of turnover, the petitioner submitted that the mismatch in December 2018 return showing sales as per GSTR-3B at Rs.4,83,03,934.70/- was due to a clerical mistake. The actual sale for the period as per GSTR 1 in B2C was Rs.48,03,934.00/-. Thus, there was a difference of Rs.4,35,00,000.00/- in the sales figure. Similarly, there was a mismatch in January 2019 returns the sales as per GSTR 3B was Rs. 29,00,239.28/-, exempted sales was at Rs.1,68,750.00/- and the total sales for the period was Rs.30,68,989.28/- but as per GSTR 1, in B2B it was Rs.4,35,626.48/- and as per B2C it was Rs.20,05,429.00/-, the exempted sales was Rs. NIL which was said to be by way of mistake of accountant. Total sales for the period was Rs.24,41,055.48/-. Thus, the difference amount in sale was Rs.6,27,933.80/- and the net differences was Rs.4,41,27,934.50/-.
The appellate authority has found that the appellant could not produce any evidence in terms of the clarifactory circular dated 27.02.2022 read with Section 16(2) (a) (b) (c) and (d).
The petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, still the petitioner has chosen to move this Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are neither suffering from violation of principles of natural justice nor this Court finds any jurisdictional error committed by the respondent authorities. The scope of interference with the impugned orders in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be extended so as to entertain the present writ application.
This writ application is dismissed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 202
Maintainability of petition - availability of efficacious remedy of filing an appeal u/s 107 of the GST act before the appellate authority - petitioner was not given any opportunity before the assessing authority during the assessment proceedings - violation of the principle of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the provisions of Section 169 indicates that five modes of service have been provided and further that every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub section (1). Therefore, service can be effected at the discretion of the assessing authority by giving or tendering the notice directly or by a messenger including a courier or by registered post or by speed post or courier or by sending e- mail and or by making it available on the common portal or by publication in a news paper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain.
The assessing authority in the impugned order has recorded that considering the discrepancy in the return filed by the petitioner are notice under section 61 of the GST act was sent on 04/10/2024 requiring the petitioner to remove the discrepancy pointed out in the said notice by 19/10/2024 - The petitioner did not either deposit the amount as directed by the assessing authority, nor did he reply to the notice and accordingly in the aforesaid circumstances the matter was heard ex - parte and decided by the impugned order dated 19/02/2025 which has been assailed in the present writ petition.
The petitioner was duly communicated by the tax department as per the modes prescribed under Section 169, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any violation of principles of natural justice. While interpreting the provision of section 169 we will also have to consider Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to Section 13 (2) electronic record deemed to be received when it enters the designated computer recourse. Similarly, as per section 13(3) unless it is otherwise agreed between the parties and electronic record is deemed to be dispatched at the place of the originator has his place of business is deemed to be received at the place of the addressee has his place of business - In the present case, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that at the time of registration the petitioner has disclosed his e-mail address and the mobile over for the purpose of communication, and there is, therefore, an agreement for exchange of communication through electronic mode. In case, the assessee has given a wrong email address, or an email address which is not accessible by him, may or may not be a valid defence which may be determined on the facts of each individual case, but one thing is clear that the respondent cannot be held be responsible for not giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The service of notice was made as per the provisions of Section 169 (c) of the GST Act and therefore, there was no breach of the fundamental rights of the petitioner with regard to service prior, during and after the assessment proceedings. In the aforesaid circumstances this court of the considered that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy by way of an appeal and therefore, the aspect of service can also be duly looked into after considering the facts and material produced by the petitioner and therefore for the said reason we do not proceed to determine the question as to whether as per sub clause 2 of section 169 once the service has been effected as per sub clause (c) & (d) of section 169, it shall be deemed to have been served on the date it is tendered.
There are no merit in the claim of the petitioner that there is breach of fundamental rights that has occurred by not giving opportunity to the petitioner during the assessment proceedings and the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing - the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has equally efficacious statutory remedy under Section 107 of GST Act before the First Appellate Authority is agreed and accordingly he is relegate to the same.
The writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has equally efficacious remedy and accordingly he is relegated to the same. The petition is dismissed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 201
Violation of principles of natural justice - service of notice - all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal - impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.
No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
This Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner - it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the respondent.
The impugned order dated 06.02.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (7) TMI 200
Confirmation of entire original tax demand, without taking into aspect that the petitioner remitted 58% of the differential amount claimed by way of debit from electronic credit ledger - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the entire tax proposal was confirmed and no credit was given in respect of 58% remitted by way of debiting the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration.
The impugned order dated 07.05.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration of the first respondent. After providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, including by taking into consideration the remittances made by the petitioner by way of debit from electronic credit ledger.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (7) TMI 199
Entitlement to take input tax credit - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted its invoice/debit note pertaining to the financial year 2018-19 and, that too, prior to 30-11-2021 and, therefore, the case of the petitioner very well comes under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 16.
The respondent authorities are directed to consider the matter and pass an appropriate order taking into consideration the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, vide Amendment [Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024] dated 16-8-2024.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 198
Exemption from GST - activity of the applicant, involving the provision of pure services for the repair and maintenance of public street lighting infrastructure and the supply of manpower based on the work order issued by the local authorities of Kayamkulam Municipality - services of street light maintenance provided to various government authorities and government entities by the applicant - applicability of Serial No. 3 of N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Serial No. 3A of the amended N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 - Applicable SAC entry.
Exemption from GST - activity of the applicant, involving the provision of pure services for the repair and maintenance of public street lighting infrastructure and the supply of manpower based on the work order issued by the local authorities of Kayamkulam Municipality - applicability of Serial No. 3 of N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Serial No. 3A of the amended N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 - HELD THAT:- Under the GST law, a Municipality is treated as a local authority by virtue of the definition provided under Section 2(69) of the CGST Act, 2017, which states that “local authority” includes a municipality as defined in clause (e) of Article 243P of the Constitution. Therefore, for the purposes of GST exemptions under Entry 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), a Municipality qualifies as a local authority, as it is a constitutionally recognized body entrusted with functions under Article 243W. Accordingly, services provided to a Municipality are eligible for exemption when they relate to such constitutional functions.
The applicant's pure services of repair and maintenance of public street lighting infrastructure and supply of manpower based on the work order issued by Kayamkulam Municipality are covered under the said exemption and are not exigible to GST. However, this exemption applies only to pure services or to a composite supply where the value of goods involved does not exceed 25% of the total value.
Applicable SAC entry - HELD THAT:- While the nature of the supply is indeed taxable under GST as it falls under the category of services, it has been held to be exempt under Entry 3 and Entry 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017. Therefore, the question of applicable tax rate does not arise. If the exemption under Notification No. 12/2017 is not applicable, the supply would be taxable under SAC Heading 9987- Maintenance, Repair and Installation (except construction) Services, based on the description provided by the applicant.
Whether the services of street light maintenance provided to various government authorities and government entities by the applicant, i.e., Kayamkulam Municipality, where the value of goods consumed is less than 25% of the total contract value, are eligible for exemption from GST as provided under Sr. No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017, as amended by Notification No. 16/2021-Central Tax (Rate) dated 18-11-2021, being pure services as per the definition and relating to the functions listed under Articles 243G and 243W of the Constitution? - HELD THAT:- In cases where the value of goods involved does not exceed 25% of the total contract value, the supply falls under the NIL rate of tax as per Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25-01-2018. Notification No. 16/2021-Central Tax (Rate) dated 18.11.2021 amended Entries 3 and 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) by omitting the words “or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity” from the list of eligible recipients. However, this amendment does not affect the exemption for supplies made to a “local authority”, which continues to be covered under both Entry 3 and Entry 3A, provided the supply is either of pure services or a composite supply involving goods not exceeding 25% of the total contract value, and the services relate to functions entrusted to Panchayats or Municipalities under Article 243G or Article 243W of the Constitution.
........
|
9911796707
