|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 1558
Initaition of proceedings u/s 73 of the CGST Act or not - entitlment to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme introduced under Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Under identical circumstances, in Balaji Packaging’s case [2025 (4) TMI 169 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], this Court disposed of the petition by holding that 'In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner intends to avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the CGST Act, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-D and remit the matter back to respondent No. 5 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.'
The present petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court - matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1503
Challenge to demand made - case of petitioner is that the demand raised with respect to Financial Year 2017-18 u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has no legs to stand in view of the decision taken by the GST Council in its 31st meeting on 22.12.2018 and subsequent amendment carried out in Section 50 of the CGST Act with retrospective effect by virtue of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2021 - HELD THAT:- The present case is similar to Utkal Automobile Private Limited Vrs. Union of India & Others [2022 (8) TMI 368 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'This Court is inclined to allow this writ petition by setting aside the Demand Information Notice DIN-20200262WJ00005DF3DE in Communication bearing C.No. GST/01/INTEREST/BBSRIX/2020/64, dated 18th February, 2020 (Annexure-3) and remand the matter to the Superintendent, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-IX Range for reconsideration of the matter taking into consideration the amendment carried out by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021.'
This writ petition challenging the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Kendrapara Range is bound to be allowed. Accordingly, the order-in-original dated 30.01.2025 vide Annexure-1 stands set aside and the matter is now remitted to the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Kendrapara Range for reconsideration of the matter - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1502
Time barred SCN or not - order served on petitioner or not - proper opportunity of hearing not provided to petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Without going into the merit of the case, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure ‘P2’) passed by Respondent No. 3 with respect to the period 2018-2019.
The matter is remitted to the Respondent No. 3 with a direction that he would give personal hearing to the petitioner through its authorized representative and thereafter shall pass orders.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1501
Violation of principles of natural justice -petitioner did not have adequate notice of the appeal to appear before the Appellate Authority and the appeal petition along with the grounds of appeal was also not served - non-speaking order - HELD THAT:- No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Though, the consequential direction of setting aside of the order passed by the adjudicating authority is not explicit from the order impugned, however, since the appellate authority in paragraphs 5.3 to 5.5 has been pleased to record that the adjudicating authority has failed to examine the legality of ITC availed by the respondent who is the petitioner herein, under the various tables and the petitioner also having not submitted any clarification nor attended the personal hearing and also by noting that the adjudicating authority has failed to discuss the various issues involved and having not passed a speaking order, the said appeal was allowed.
Although, the appellate authority was required to make such further enquiry as may be necessary so as to take a firm decision, the same has not been done. The appellate authority has only observed that the adjudicating authority has failed to examine the legality of ITC availed. The above direction is dehors the provisions of Section 107(11) and (12) of the said Act.
Thus, while setting aside the order impugned, including the order passed by the adjudicating authority dated 30th October, 2023, let the matter stands remanded back before the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on merits - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1500
Initiation of multiple investigations and proceedings by different authorities under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 for the same tax periods - audit proceeding and show cause notice have already been issued under Section 65 of the Act - search and seizure proceeding under Section 67 also initiated - whether having regard to the provisions contained in Chapter XIII especially Section 65(7) and Section 66(6) of the said Act, any further enquiry for the selfsame period for which an audit has already been conducted is permissible? - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, the statute does not create any embargo on the authorities to proceed simultaneously under Chapter XIII and Chapter XIV of the said Act. However, at the same time, having regard to the special provision contained in Section 65(7) of the said Act and the respondent no.3 having conducted an audit and having issued a show cause, ordinarily, the registered taxable persons are not to be subjected to multiple enquiries by different authorities without such authorities bringing the search and seizure proceeding to a logical conclusion. Admittedly, in this case, the State has already initiates search and seizure which has not brought to a logical conclusion.
At this stage, the Central Authority should not be permitted to proceed simultaneously with regard to the period for which the State has been proceeding - In view thereof, the enquiry, if any, by the DGGI authorities should be restricted to the period for which the proceeding has already not been initiated by the State.
Let affidavit-in-opposition to the present writ petition be filed within a period of six weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1499
Cancellation of GST registration - SCN has been issued on the ground that the Petitioner-firm was found to be non-functional during the investigation - HELD THAT:- The Court has considered the matter, and is of the opinion that the request for re-inspection can also be made to the Adjudicating Authority. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned SCN.
At this stage, the Petitioner prays that the Respondent-Department provide the Petitioner a personal hearing and conclude the proceeding in a time bound manner, as the Petitioner’s firm has come to a standstill, in view of the suspension initiated vide the impugned SCN.
The Respondent-Department is directed to grant the Petitioner a personal hearing and the notice for the same may be issued to the Petitioner - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1498
Challenge to SCN for cancellation of GST registration - violation of Rule 21(b) for issuing invoices without supply of goods or services - HELD THAT:- Considering that the impugned show cause notice is almost 6 months old, let the Petitioner file a reply. In the reply, the Petitioner shall disclose to the Delhi GST Department, if there is any show cause notice issued against the Petitioner by the CGST Department, including in respect of availment of Input Tax Credit etc.
Upon the reply being filed by 1st July, 2025, the DGST shall take a decision within a period of one month. The DGST is also free to verify from the CGST of any proceedings that may be pending against the Petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1497
Service of SCN - Ex-parte order - neither alleged show cause notice was ever brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, nor service of the same was physically ever effected upon petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is a settled legal principle evolved in a catena of decisions by this Court and the Supreme Court that provisions contained under tax statute have to be very strictly construed the hence provisions providing for a particular pre-requisite like opportunity of oral hearing before passing of final order, have to be complied with by the authority. Authority cannot take it for granted that provisions providing for personal hearing is an empty formalities and representation to notice would suffice the need.
In the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company and others [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] in which the Supreme Court vide paragraph 24 has very clearly observed 'The penal statute which tends to deprive a person of right to life and liberty has to be given strict interpretation or else many innocents might become victims of discretionary decision-making. Insofar as taxation statutes are concerned, Article 265 of the Constitute prohibits the State from extracting tax from the citizens without authority of law. It is axiomatic that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly because the State cannot at their whims and fancies burden the citizens without authority of law. In other words, when the competent Legislature mandates taxing certain persons/ certain objects in certain circumstances, it cannot be expanded/ interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature.'
It is thus directed that the order passed by the assessing officer dated 15th April, 2021 shall be taken to be notice within the meaning of Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 to enable the petitioner to file his objections and place its documents before assessing officer/ competent authority for its consideration.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1423
Cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 - non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months - absence of a personal hearing date being notified to the petitioner - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As per Section 29(2)(c), an officer, duly empowered, may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he deems fit, where any registered person, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has laid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration.
Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the reason that the petitioner did not submit returns for a period of 6 (six) months or more and the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, this Court is of the considered view that in the event the petitioner approaches the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, has the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form.
This writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of her GST registration - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1422
Seeking regular bail - passing on fake ITC to various beneficiaries - fake/non-existing Firms with an intent to pass on fake ITC on the basis of alleged supply shown in fake invoice - tax evasion - HELD THAT:- Bare reading the complaint would reveal that there are serious allegations against the accused-petitioner of creation of at 353 fake/non-existing Firms with an intent to pass on fake ITC on the basis of alleged supply shown in fake invoice and thereby passing on fake ITC to various beneficiaries. Magnitude of such fake ITC and tax evasion is also quite high around Rs. 704 Crores, which is likely to affect the economy to a great extent. Offences alleged against the Petitioners evidently fall within the purview of economic offences.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs Directorate of Enforcement [2017 (11) TMI 779 - SUPREME COURT], while following the judgment in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy [2013 (5) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT] categorically held that white-collar crimes are more dangerous to society than ordinary crimes, as they are committed with deliberate calculation, breach of trust, and often result in significant financial loss to the public exchequer. The Court emphasized that such offences are deep-rooted economic conspiracies involving abuse of official positions and must not be treated leniently merely because they are non-violent.
On examination of High Court Judgment in the case Vineet Jain [2025 (5) TMI 925 - SC ORDER], it would reveal that the allegations against Vineet Jain were of tax evasion amounting to Rs. 10.87 Crore and there were no criminal antecedents against him, only therefore, with the above observations bail was admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In the instant case, conduct of the accused-petitioner would in itself dis-entitle him from seeking relief of bail, as he has not only suppressed the facts regarding his antecedents, which are evidently having material bearing at the time of consideration of bail, but admittedly he has also made a serious attempt to flee away from the custody during pendency of the instant Bail Application by using his influence and power. Hence, in the light of above possibility of his absconding and influencing the witnesses can not be ruled out.
It is no longer res-integra that it is necessary to assess the accused’s propensity to abscond, at the time of consideration of the bail application. In view of the facts of the instant case, where the petitioner has attempted to abscond, he is not entitled to bail.
Conclusion - i) The accused-petitioner's bail application cannot be allowed merely on the basis of the maximum prescribed sentence or the triable forum, given the extraordinary magnitude of the alleged offence. ii) The power of competent officers under CGST Act to issue summons and arrest for offences under section 132 is well established, and the procedural safeguards were followed as per record. iii) The accused-petitioner's conduct disentitles him from bail, as it raises reasonable apprehension of absconding and tampering with evidence or witnesses. iv) The economic magnitude and complexity of the offence justify denial of bail to protect public interest and ensure effective prosecution.
The bail application filed by the accused-petitioner hereby stands dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1421
Confiscation of goods with conveyance - mismatch between the goods described in the tax invoice and the goods physically found during inspection - typographical error - intent to evade duty - clerical/typographical error - burden of proof - interpretation of Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Act - HELD THAT:- The tax invoice is furnished along with the Writ Petition, and the same is marked as Annexure-D. It contains a tabular column. There are six descriptions of goods, and the controversy is about the fourth item. At serial number four, it is shown as Copra weighing 8,50,000 g / 850 kg. In the E-way bill, it has been mentioned as dry grapes. The petitioner has paid the requisite tax on all the goods. Hence, the tax authorities ought to have considered whether the petitioner has evaded the tax liability. Except for quoting the Sections, the impugned orders do not provide any reasons.
The mistake was merely a clerical error, and there was no intention to evade tax. They presented supporting documents, including the tax invoice, packing list, and bill of entry, which indicated that all necessary duties and taxes had been paid.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner in certain cases, but when the error is a typographical or clerical one, the initial burden of proof is on the tax authorities to demonstrate an intention to evade tax. In this case, the department failed to establish such intent and did not discredit the documents provided by the petitioner. Furthermore, there is a tabular column in the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). There are certain discrepancies in mentioning the quantity of the grapes in the table - The first respondent has just confirmed the order passed by the original authority. There was no evasion of tax by the petitioner. However, the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority went ahead with the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioner.
The order dated:23.08.2022 passed by the first respondent in Appeal No.APL/GST-30/2021-22 vide Annexure-A and the order dated:10.07.2021 passed by the second respondent in order No.ACCT(ENF)/HPT/MOV-11/2021-22/109 vide Annexure-B are quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1420
Valid issuance of SCN or not - right to cross-examine - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that under the CGST Act, a show cause notice has been issued by the competent authorities and the petitioner would always be at liberty to raise the ground as to whether the provision under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act is attracted or not or in any manner has no foundation, before the adjudicating authority. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time reiterated the aforesaid principle(s) that the High Court should be reluctant to interfere against mere issuance of show cause notice.
In the matter of Kunisetty Satyanarayana [2006 (11) TMI 543 - SUPREME COURT], it was materially observed that 'It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere showcause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.'
Conclusion - On perusal of the show cause notice and the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, this Court is reluctant to interfere in the matter at this juncture, as no case is made out in favour of the petitioners. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all such grounds before the competent adjudicating authority. If the petitioners wish to cross-examine any of the witnesses, he may file an appropriate application in accordance with law before the competent authority.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1419
Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte order - Non-service of SCN - physical service of SCN not done - petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order - Lifting of bank account of the petitioner maintained in Indian Bank, Anna Nagar Branch - petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the impugned show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the 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.
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.
This Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order with terms, by issuing the directions imposed - the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1418
Challenge to order passed by the respondent dated 27.08.2024 along with the summary order Form GST DRC-07 dated 27.08.2024 - non-affording of an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the impugned show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notice issued through the GST Portal. Further, the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to the petitioner in person. 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.
Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same would 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.
This Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order, as the same suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice. Further, taking into consideration of the fact that the respondent, in pursuance of the impugned proceeding, already recovered entire disputed tax from the petitioner's bank account, this Court is not inclined to impose any condition requiring the petitioner to make any deposit.
Conclusion - The impugned order set aside for violation of natural justice, service by portal upload alone was insufficient without alternative modes, no conditions were imposed on the petitioner due to tax recovery, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration
The impugned order passed by the respondent 27.08.2024 along with the summary order Form GST DRC-07 dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Respondent are set aside - the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1344
Challenge to order passed u/s 107 of the WBGST /CGST Act, 2017 and the demand raised by the respondents in From GST APL – 04 - non-reversal of ITC - HELD THAT:- The appellate authority having found that the petitioner had failed to afford appropriate reconciliation statement, ought to have called upon the petitioner to produce such statements to arrive at a correct conclusion, having regard to the scope of Section 107(12) of the said Act.
Admittedly, the appellate authority had concluded that the determination had been made by ignoring the procedure for determination of ITC in respect of inputs or inputs services and the reversal thereof as provided in Rule 42 and on the capital goods and reversal thereof as provided in Rule 43 of the said Rules and having regard thereto, in ordinary course, appropriate determination ought to have been made by the appellate authority, by calling for documents from the petitioner. The same has not been done.
Conclusion - Be that as it may, since it prima facie appears that the petitioner was also at fault in supplying the reconciliation statements, it would be prudent at this stage instead of remanding the matter back to the appellate authority, to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for the adjudicating authority to decide the same in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1343
Rejection of rectification application - erroneous on facts - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A reading of the impugned order indicates a complete nonapplication of mind and a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not heard, despite having a right to be heard before the passing of such an order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order under Section 161 of the respective GST Enactments, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1342
Violation of principles of natural justice - the 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 - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, it is evident that the SCN 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 08.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of 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 1341
Violation of principles of natural justice - service of SCN - neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served by tendering to the petitioner or by registered post, instead it was uploaded in the common portal - petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax - HELD THAT:- According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the 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.
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.
This Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order with terms, by issuing the directions imposed - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1340
Violation of principles of natural justice - all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal - petitioner was not aware of the said notices - 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.
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.
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 24.12.2023passed by the respondent - The impugned order dated 24.12.2023 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 (6) TMI 1339
Rejection of application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration - non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months - proper service of SCN or not - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled due to non-compliance in filing returns. Furthermore, the application for revocation of cancellation was also rejected vide the impugned order. It is stated that due to mental stress and physical illness, the petitioner could not pay GST dues and file the returns. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the reason provided by the petitioner for non-compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act within the stipulated time appears to be genuine.
The impugned order is set aside subject to the payment of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the Principal Government Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital, Account No.7883022723, IFSC Code: IDIB000M157, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount - Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
