|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 1655
Wrongful availment of IGST - territorial jurisdiction - it is the case of the petitioner that IGST which was to be availed in Tamil Nadu Unit was wrongly availed in Telegana and was also reversed in Telegana - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, the petitioner has made out a case for the relief for which the petitioner seeks for before the respondents.
Considering the same, there shall be a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 06.01.2025 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that the petitioner shall be heard before any adverse orders are proposed to be passed.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1654
Maintainability of petition - time limitation - petitioner has filed this writ petition two days after the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017 - ex-parte impugned order - Non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A reading of the impugned order indicates that it is a nonspeaking order and reflects non-application of mind to the reply filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court has no option except to quash the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall file a detailed reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1653
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order has been passed on the ground that the reply is not acceptable and the defect is confirmed - HELD THAT:- As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the impugned orders has been passed against the provisions contemplated under Section 75 (4) of the TNGST Act, inasmuch as, in terms of Section 75 (4) of the TNGST Act, an opportunity of hearing has to be granted, where any adverse decision is contemplated against taxpayer (petitioner in this case).
The impugned orders passed by the respondent dated 12.03.2025 are set aside - the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1652
Cancellation of GST registration - petitioner has already paid the amount to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is inclined to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned cancellation order dated 04.12.2023. The respondent authorities are directed to verify whether any further amount is due from the petitioner and if any amount is found to be due, then the petitioner be notified and on payment of the same, the respondent authorities shall restore the GST registration of the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1651
Rejection of appeal on the ground of time limitation - petitioner had already paid 10% towards statutory pre-deposit while filing the appeal and now, he is willing to pay additional pre-deposit of 15% of disputed tax amount - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, the ex-parte assessment order came to be passed on 31.08.2023. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 09.02.2024, i.e., with a delay of 72 days. Since the delay was beyond the condonable period, the said appeal was rejected by the respondent vide impugned order dated 27.12.2024. According to the petitioner, since the assessment order was passed in ex-parte, they remained unaware of the said order and hence, they were unable to file the appeal within time - The above reason assigned by the petitioner, for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, appears to be genuine. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, in filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order, on terms.
Though the petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount as statutory pre-deposit while filing the appeal, considering the delay of 72 days, this Court directs the petitioner to pay additional 15% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents, as agreed by the petitioner.
Conclusion - The 72-day delay in filing the appeal is condoned on the ground of genuine unawareness of the ex-parte order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1650
Availment of fraudulent Input Tax Credit - violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - duplication of demand - HELD THAT:- The order dated 14th December 2023 passed by the State GST has been placed on record, which shows that it is for the same period i.e., July 17 to March 18 and a demand of Rs. 22,03,320/- has been raised - Since the issue is of duplication, the Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 27th January, 2025 and the pre- deposit would be made only in respect of the amount relating to Keshav International.
The Petitioner is permitted to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act within thirty days and would make a pre-deposit of 10% qua the amount demanded against Keshav International only and not for Pancham Trading Co. - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1649
Challenge to order of determination under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the officer or not - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Though respondents pleaded that an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner on 06.06.2024, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was served with any notice indicating the grant of such an opportunity. Notwithstanding the above, as on the date petitioner filed the writ petition, no final orders were passed and this Court had granted an interim stay. However, the day after the stay expired as the case had not come up in Court despite direction to post the case on a particular date, final orders were issued as Ext.P11, imposing liability on the petitioner.
When this Court was in seizin of the matter and had even granted an interim order, it would have been only appropriate for the first respondent to have waited till the writ petition was disposed of, especially since the grant of an opportunity of cross- examination was being considered by the court. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be granted to the tax payer, if any adverse orders are issued. Therefore, even if the stay had expired, petitioner ought to have granted an opportunity of hearing.
Conclusion - There is nothing to indicate that petitioner was issued with a notice granting an opportunity of hearing atleast after the stay expired. The first respondent ought to have issued a fresh notice granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing Ext.P11 order and that having not been done, the impugned order Ext.P11 is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ext.P11 order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with sufficient notice - petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1571
Challenge to order under Section 74 of HP GST Act, 2017 - wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - amount deposited by the petitioner 'under protest' can be treated as an admission of liability, thereby justifying imposition of interest and penalty or not - HELD THAT:- Once the petitioner had deposited the amount ‘under protest’, the same could not have been considered to be an admission of liability because the necessary corollary of deposit under protest is that the amount towards the alleged liability has been deposited without admitting the liability and inherent therein is his right to challenge the order.
‘Under protest’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary Tenth Edition, Page 1419 as “3. A formal statement, usu. in writing disputing a debt’s legality or validity but agreeing to make payment while reserving the right to recover the amount at a later time. *The disputed debt is described as ‘under protest’. 4. Tax. A taxpayer’s statement to the collecting officer that payment is being made unwillingly because the taxpayer believes the tax to be invalid.
The order under Section 74 of the HP GST Act, 2017, dated 02.12.2023, charging interest of Rs. 1,32,34,923/- and levying penalty of Rs. 1,11,45,134/- are quashed and set aside. Further, respondent No. 4 is directed to issue fresh DRC-07 incorporating only the disputed amount of tax of Rs. 1,11,45,134/- on account of alleged wrong availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), so as to enable the petitioner to agitate the same by filing an appeal before the Appellant authority.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1570
Challenge to order passed u/s 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - notice in Form GST DRC – 01A served prior to issuance of the show cause - whether proper officer had already made up its mind to pass an adverse order against the petitioner? - HELD THAT:- Prima facie it is found that the petitioner had been served with a notice in Form GST DRC – 01A dated 19th December 2023 prior to issuance of the show cause. Subsequently, a show cause was issued on 25th April 2024 and later an order under Section 73(1) of the said Act has been passed on 2nd December 2024.
The petitioner has stated that in the first week of January 2025 upon the change of accountant of the petitioner, the petitioner had been able to ascertain and was handed over the aforesaid notices and order of the proceeding and had no notice prior thereto. It is, however not the case of the petitioner that since December 2023 the petitioner did not operate the portal or did not file any returns. The order in the instant case was not passed overnight. Admittedly, the order was preceded not only by the show cause but also by a pre show cause notice and as such, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was unaware with regard to the aforesaid proceeding and only became aware thereof, upon the new accountant taking charge in the first week of January 2025.
In the instant case the proper officer had duly afforded the petitioner with an opportunity to respond to the show cause well before the opportunity of personal hearing was afforded. Simply because the proper officer in the show-cause had notified the petitioner with the date for opportunity of personal hearing prior to receipt of the reply, the same does not and cannot render the aforesaid show cause bad, nor can it be concluded that the proper officer had made up his mind in the matter.
Having regard to the provision of Section 75(4) of the said Act it is apparent that the said provision provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received from the person chargeable with tax or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The word “contemplate” has not been defined in the said Act - There is no irregularity on the part of the proper officer in providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing by notifying the same to the petitioner while issuing the show cause especially, when the opportunity of hearing was afforded subsequent to the date of furnishing of the response to the show cause.
Admittedly in this case, the petitioner did not avail such opportunity and did not appear before the authority. Having not done so, the petitioner is not entitled to question the same.
Thus, no interference to the order is called for in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. However, having regard to the fact that the scheme of the said Act provides for multi tiered adjudicating process, especially since the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted, the petitioner should not be rendered remediless.
Conclusion - No violation of natural justice or predetermination was found in affording the opportunity of hearing simultaneously with the show cause notice.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1569
Challenge to assessment order - petitioner has not participated in the adjudication mechanism prescribed under the TNGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 and has thus suffered an adverse order - HELD THAT:- Under similar circumstances, the Court has come to the rescue of a person, like the petitioner by quashing the assessment order on terms subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax. There are no reason to take a different view in the facts and circumstances of the case.
This Writ Petition is disposed of, by quashing the impugned order on terms, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax with the respondent in cash from the Electronic Cash Register, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1568
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - Ext.P4 order of cancellation was issued without giving a proper notice as contemplated under Rule 22 of CGST Rule 2017 - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As per Rule 22, it is obligatory for the authority concerned to issue a show cause notice granting time of seven working days to submit a reply to the show cause notice.
Moreover, the Form prescribed for the show cause notice i.e. FORM GST REG-17 also contemplates for providing the reason on which the proposal to cancel the registration was being made. On going through Ext.P3 show cause notice it is seen that, both the conditions are not complied with. Even though in Ext.P3, the petitioner was granted seven working days for submitting a reply, the order was seen passed on 21.06.2023, i.e before expiry of seven days and no specific reasons or violation are mentioned in the Ext.P3 show cause notice. What is mentioned in Ext.P3 was as follows: “Non compliance of any specific provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed”.
However, which provision of the GST Act or the Rules was violated by the petitioner, was not specifically mentioned in Ext.P3. Therefore, it is evident that, the Ext.P3 notice cannot be treated as a valid notice issued in compliance with the statutory stipulations contained in Rule 22 and therefore, there are no justifiable reasons to sustain Ext.P4 order of cancellation of registration.
This writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P4.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1567
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-service of SCN - all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent 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.
Further, 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 19.12.2024 passed by the respondent - The impugned order dated 19.12.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1566
Cancellation of GST registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - petitioner’s Application under Section 30 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for revocation of the cancellation order is already pending - HELD THAT:- Despite the direction by the Authority to furnish Geo Tag of the premises, in other words, latitude and longitude of the premises, in which the business of the petitioner is housed, the same has not been furnished. In view of non-furnishing of the same, the Application is on the file.
In that view of the matter, the petitioner shall furnish the same within two weeks. If such GPS position of the office / place of business is furnished by the petitioner within two weeks from today, the Application shall be considered and disposed of.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1565
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-service of orders and SCN - petitioner was unaware of the initiated proceedings and was thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings - HELD THAT:- Taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, wherein, the petitioner has already remitted the entire disputed taxes, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be granted one final opportunity to put forth his objections, which was not objected to by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
Since, the above order is made on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire disputed tax has been remitted already, the respondent may verify the same.
The impugned orders dated 15.03.2024 and 24.08.2024 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1564
Jurisdiction to initiate adjudication proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act, having started, conducted and completed the audit proceedings under Section 65 of the GST Act - interpretation of the expression ‘the plant or machinery’ as found in Section 17(5)(d) of the GST Act - building can be classified as a 'plant' within the meaning of the expression 'the plant or machinery' as used in Section 17(5)(d) of the GST Act or not - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has already deposited 10% of the amount in demand consequent to the impugned Order-of-adjudication and that this amount may be directed to be held by the respondents subject to the conclusion of the restored proceedings. This Court opines that just observations must also be made to ensure that there is complete adjudication.
The petition is allowed in part and the impugned Order-of-adjudication dated 28.02.2025 in No. CTO (AUDIT 1.2)/(ADJ)-1931/2024-25 passed by the first respondent and the summary of the Orders dated 28.02.2025 [Annexures-A and A1] are quashed restoring the proceedings to the first respondent for reconsideration.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1563
Violation of principles of naural justice - service of SCN - 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.
Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.
The impugned order dated 14.08.2024 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 - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1562
Challenge to impugned order passed by the second respondent in Form GST ASMT 14 for the assessment years 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2020-21 - petitioner has not filed appeals before the ADC (GST) Appeals, Trichy, within 90 days as required in intimation to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Long after the expiry of the limitation, the present Writ Petitions have been filed and listed for admission. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no scope of entertaining the Writ Petition after the expiry of the limitation, this Court has taken consistent stand to allow the petitioner under the similar circumstances to file an appeal, subject to pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax. This stand has not been deviated and has been followed regularly.
These Writ Petitions are disposed of at the time of admission by permitting the petitioner to file statutory appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax through cash in the Electronic Cash Register or by furnishing Demand Draft for the same effect.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1561
Challenge to SCN and also the consequent order - challenge to N/N. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 - proper opporunity of hearing not provided to petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
The Petitioner is granted time till 15th July 2025, to file the additional reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner - the impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1560
Challenge to SCN - Cancellation of GST registration - Petitioner was not conducting its business from the declared place of business - HELD THAT:- Considering that the Show Cause Notice has never been decided, the following directions are issued: i. The re-inspection of the Petitioner’s premises shall be conducted. ii. The reply dated 2nd April, 2025 shall be taken on record. iii. Personal hearing shall be granted and after hearing the Petitioner or its authorised person, the adjudication order shall be passed in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1559
Challenge to assessment order and assessment framed against the petitioner - typographical error in the return filed by the petitioner and petitioner inadvertently did not put in a decimal - ex-parte decision - impugned order does not reflect any reasons or findings recorded by the proper officer - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 20.01.2025 merely records that the show cause notice DRC-01A was issued on 10.12.2024 and till the passing of the order, no reply had been uploaded on the Online Portal and since there is no reply, an ex-parte decision is passed and assessment is framed under Section 74 of the Act.
The impugned order does not reflect any reasons or findings recorded by the proper officer of fraud, willful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. Consequently, the impugned being bereft of any details or reasoning, is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
The matter is thus remitted to the proper officer to re-adjudicate the show cause, in accordance with law - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
