|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 1338
Computation of value of GST - amount paid to the owner of the car and amount incurred for the refurbishment of the said car are includible in the purchase price so as to deduct the same from the selling price of the old and used refurbished car to arrive as the margin for the purpose of valuation and levy under N/N. 08/2018CT (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 or not - case of petitioner is that the appellate authority had no occasion to deal with issue of ITC in appeal filed against decision of AAR with regard to valuation to be done for arriving at the margin as per the notification - HELD THAT:- The challenge to the order of the AAR is not being pressed.
The respondent albeit, defends the order of the AAAR but is not a position to dispute that the issue with regard to ITC was not before the AAR.
The order of the AAAR is upheld but the observation made are expunged - the writ petition is partly allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1337
Challenge to freezing of the bank accounts of the Petitioner - grievance of the Petitioner is that two more accounts have been opened on the same PAN number and in view of the communication dated 16th June, 2024, even the said bank accounts have also been frozen by the Bank - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the appeal in respect of the impugned Order-in- Original has already been filed in terms of Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the final order dated 28th January, 2025 is automatically stayed. Therefore Kotak Mahindra Bank is directed to de-freeze all three accounts with immediate effect. The Department shall also issue a communication to the Kotak Mahindra Bank calling upon them to lift the debit freeze.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1336
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Recovery of amount from the Electronic Credit Ledger/Electronic Cash Ledger of the petitioner under Section 79 of the Goods and Services Taxes Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the Section 78 would reveal that the amount payable by taxable person pursuant to an order passed under the Act shall be paid within three months from the date of service of such order 'failing which recovery proceedings shall be initiated'. The proviso to the said provision confers power on the proper officer for reasons to be recorded to require such taxable person to make payment within a period of three months. The language and intent of the provision is very clear wherein the recovery proceedings can be initiated at the end of three months from the date the amount becomes payable and for taking action prior to the said period of 3 months, reasons are required to be recorded.
In the present case, the amount became payable on the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner and, therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 78 of the Act, essentially the demand could not have been enforced for a period of three months. This is besides the fact that under provisions of Section 112, on deposit of 10% of the demand, the rest of the demand gets stayed under sub-section (9) of Section 112 of the Act and the limitation for filing appeal is three months - the circular dated 11.07.2024 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs is very clear and specific providing that even when appellate tribunals have not been constituted the pre-deposit in terms of Section 112(8) of the Act can be made and in those circumstances, the action initiated and executed by the respondents in recovering the amount from the Electronic Credit Ledger/Electronic Cash Ledger of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
Conclusion - The respondents' action of recovering the amount from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger/Electronic Cash Ledger on 29.01.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the circular.
The action of the respondents in recovering the amount from the Electronic Credit Ledger/Electronic Cash Ledger on 29.01.2025 is quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1335
Challenge to impugned order by which certain demands have been raised against the Petitioner - case of the Petitioner is that the GST number of the Petitioner has been misused and some time in 2019 it was changed to the name of M/s Netwest Traders - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the show cause notice was sent to the Petitioner. However it is noticed that no reply has been filed by the Petitioner, neither has he participated in the proceedings.
In the opinion of this Court, such circumstances do not warrant the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the petition is liable to be disposed of with the liberty to the Petitioner to avail the appropriate appellate remedy in accordance with law.
At this point, the Court is informed that the limitation for filing of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Good and Service Act, 2017 has already expired - In the facts of the case where the Petitioner’s case is that his GST registration has been misused by some third party, permission is given to file the appeal within thirty days along with the requisite pre-deposit before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. If the same is filed within 30 days, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of the limitation.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1334
Supply or not - assignment or transfer of leasehold rights in immovable property - land allotted by a government industrial development corporation - HELD THAT:- In the given circumstances and factual matrix, the decision of this court in the case of Gujarat Chamber of Commerce [2025 (1) TMI 516 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] will squarely apply, as the issue involved in this case is identical.
This Court had the occasion to follow to same reasoning as given in the Gujarat Chamber of Commerce in various decisions by this Court, notably in the recent decisions of Alfa Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Another [2025 (3) TMI 887 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], in M/s. BVM Pharma Through Partner Alkaben Paneri v. Union of India & Ors. [2025 (5) TMI 374 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], and also followed the same in the case of Time Technoplast Limited v. Union of India & Ors. [2025 (5) TMI 539 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT].
Conclusion - i) The assignment of leasehold rights in the facts of these petitions is not subject to GST. ii) The transfer from partnership to sole proprietorship is an internal reorganization exempt from GST. iii) The impugned orders demanding GST, interest, and penalty are quashed and set aside.
The impugned order set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1259
Rejection of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) relating to zero rated supplies (Exports) of goods and services - rejection of refund on the ground that the recipients of the services located outside India are carrying on business through the “agency” in India i.e. the Petitioner and hence the Petitioner qualifies as “mere establishment of distinct person” - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner does not carry on business of supply of goods or services or both on behalf of another (foreign recipient). The Petitioner provides design and engineering services to its customers on principal-to-principal basis by employing its own manpower and other resources.
There is absolutely no control by the foreign recipient on the Petitioner, which is contemplated in the agreement. Also, the clause for inspection of books of account is to facilitate the verification of the actual costs charged by the Petitioner for services rendered by them and to determine that such costs are true and fair. Such a clause is very common where consideration is costs plus a reasonable mark up. In India, most of the overseas entities have established their back office to supply services, and consideration is paid on costs plus reasonable mark up. Such a clause does not necessarily make the Indian entity (incorporated under Indian Laws) as the agent of their counterpart located outside India.
To qualify as an agent under Section 2 (5) of the CGST/MGST Act, the person has to act on behalf of or representing the other. In such case, there would be an involvement of a 3rd party viz. on whose behalf supply is made. However, in the present case, there are only 2 parties viz. the Petitioner and the recipients and hence, there is no “agency” relationship between the Petitioner and its recipient of services - It is well settled that the agreement has to be read as whole and the intention of parties to agreement is of paramount importance. In absence of a specific agreement/ arrangement that one person is an agent of another acting as a principal, “agency” cannot be created. On the contrary, the agreement categorically states that the Petitioner shall not be an agent of the foreign recipient.
In the present case, the Petitioner is not a mere establishment of the recipient of services located outside India by reason of supplies being made to sister/ group companies or holding/subsidiary companies.
The purported findings that Petitioner and foreign recipient are related persons in terms of Section 15 and the requirement of a third party in the transaction to qualify as an “agent” is irrelevant, is clearly unsustainable in view of the above circular, which clearly clarified that supply to a related party will also qualify as export of services. The said finding is otherwise absurd and perverse, since the primary requirement to satisfy the definition of an “agent” is that the agent supplies goods or services or both on behalf another person viz. third party to the transaction. Undisputedly, in the present case there are only two parties viz. the Petitioner and its foreign recipient and thus, the Petitioner, by no stretch of the imagination, can qualify as an agent - it is beyond doubt that the Petitioner is not an agency of the foreign recipient and both are independent and distinct persons. Thus, condition (v) of Section 2 (6) is fully satisfied in the present case.
Having satisfied all the conditions of Section 2 (6) of the IGST Act, the services supplied by the Petitioner qualifiy as export and thereby zero rated supplies.
Conclusion - The Petitioner is eligible for refund of unutilized ITC on account of zero rated supplies in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act and the same shall be granted to them along with statutory interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1258
Seeking grant of bail - operating certain firms which were registered in the name of some other persons, issuing the fake invoices and claiming input tax credit (ITC) ultimately evading GST - HELD THAT:- The allegation against the petitioner is that he by actually operating 44 firms which were registered in the names of some other persons, has issued the fake invoices and claimed the input tax credit (ITC) and ultimately made evasion of GST amounting to about Rs.26 crores, though the Department after making a thorough investigation has found the substance in the allegations against the accused petitioner and submitted their report. However, the said allegations against the accused petitioner are to be proved on the basis of evidence to be led before the trial court.
The punishment for the alleged offence is given under section 132 of the Act of 2017 and the maximum punishment for amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakhs rupees, would be imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine, meaning-thereby, the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is imprisonment for five years.
In the present case, the accused petitioner is in custody since 25.03.2025 and looking to the fact that the trial of the case has not yet started and in all there are 46 prosecution witnesses to be examined by the trial court, it can be very well presumed that the the conclusion of trial will take long time.
The accused petitioner is in custody since 25.03.2025 and the Department after completion of the thorough investigation submitted its report and the trial of the case has not yet started wherein 46 witnesses are to be examined, which may take considerable time and so also the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineet Jain and the fact that the learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out any extra ordinary circumstances in the present case for rejection of bail application of the accused petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case deems just and proper to release the accused petitioner on bail.
It is directed that the accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before the trial Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so - Bail application allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1257
Challenge to order issued u/s 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - challenge to order passed by the proper officer u/s 73 of the said Act for the tax period of July, 2017 to March 2018 - wrongful availment of ITC - HELD THAT:- This is not a case of evasion of tax but a case of wrongful availment of ITC by the petitioners which had later voluntarily been reversed by the petitioners by filing Form GST DRC 03, though in the aforesaid process there had been inadvertent error on the part of the petitioners in not selecting the relevant tax period for which such reversal was made in the respective DRC 03 forms. However, the fact that the reversal of the entirety of ITC was effected cannot be overlooked. It is found that though the proper officer (adjudicating authority) as also the appellate authority has acknowledged such aspect and despite observing that the ITC had been reversed voluntarily by the petitioners by filing Form GST DRC 03, the benefit thereof has not been extended to the petitioners citing technical grounds.
It was held in the case of Rajesh Real Estate Developers Private Limited vs. Union of India [2024 (2) TMI 1175 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], that the inadvertent error in Form GST DRC 03 can be permitted to be corrected.
The orders passed both by the proper officer (adjudicating authority) as also by the appellate authority dated 27th December, 2023 and 21st March, 2025 respectively, cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly, set aside - the matter is remanded back to the proper officer for adjudication - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1256
Rejection of an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration - HELD THAT:- The petitioner can be given a fresh chance before the respondents to explain the case as to why the revocation of the cancellation should not be ordered.
However, considering the fact that the petitioner is slept over the rights and approached this Court belatedly, the petitioner shall pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Advocates Welfare Fund [Indian Bank High Court Branch, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, Current Account No.7087208431, IFSC IDIBI000H040], within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1255
Refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal - power of appellate authority to condone delay in filing an appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue regarding the power of the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing appeal u/s 107 (4) of the WBGST Act is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in S.K. Chakraborty & Sons. Vs. Union of India [2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has already upheld the power of the appellate authority to condone such delay subject to statutory limitations. Thus, the only question remains for consideration is whether the petitioner had shown sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.
The appeal in the present case was preferred 3 months and 20 days beyond the outer condonable limit, bring the total delay to 7 months and 20 days. The medical prescriptions submitted explain only a part of the delay and fail to justify why the appeal could not have been drafted and filed during the substantial period from February 2025 to April 2025. The petitioner is a partnership firm, even if one of the partners is indisposed, nothing prevented the other partner or authorized signatory from acting. Section 169 (1) (d) provides that any of the modes of service listed therein is sufficient service. Uploading the order on the portal fulfills the statutory mandate, supplementary intimation by SMS or E-mail is facilitative, not obligatory.
In the absence of any cogent or comprehensive explanation that covers the entire period of delay, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 107 (4). Consequently, the refusal to condone the delay is perfectly in consonance with the statutory framework and the settled principles of fiscal discipline.
Thus, no perversity or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned order, it warrants no interference under Section 226 of the Constitution - petition dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1254
Valid service of SCN or not - service of SCN and notices for personal hearing exclusively through the GST Online Portal - petitioner was unaware of any of the proceedings initiated against them - neither the SCN nor the notices for personal hearing were served on the petitioner directly through physical mode of service - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- No doubt, sending notice by uploading in GST Online Portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who finds no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) which are also the valid mode of service under the said Act, otherwise, the service of notice will not be deemed to 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 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 CGST Act, preferably by way of RPAD which would ultimately achieve the object of the CGST Act.
This Court is of the view that the impugned order suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. Once the order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court cannot impose any condition requiring the petitioner to make any deposit. However, considering the fact that entire disputed tax has already been recovered from the petitioner herein, the case is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1253
Provisional attachment of cash credit account of the Petitioner with ICICI Bank - whether on a reading of Section 83 of the MGST Act, a "cash credit account" can be provisionally attached by exercising power under the said Section? - HELD THAT:- Section 83 of the MGST Act provides for provisional attachment of ‘any property including bank account belonging to the taxable person’. The cash credit account is a liability which an account holder owes to the bank for availing the loan facility and therefore by no stretch of imagination cash credit account can be construed as a property belonging to the account holder/Petitioner. The phrase ‘including bank account’ following the phrase, "any property" would mean a non cash-credit bank account. Therefore, a "cash credit account" would not be governed by Section 83 of the MGST Act.
The Petitioner has rightly relied upon the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Manish Scrap Traders Vs Principal Commissioner [2022 (1) TMI 751 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], J.L. Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner [2023 (6) TMI 945 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and J.L. Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner [2025 (3) TMI 322 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] in support of his submissions that in these decisions provisional attachment under Section 83 of cash credit account has been quashed.
There are no judgment contrary to the above referred decisions. In any case, for the reasons stated above "cash credit account" cannot be treated as "property" of the account holder which can be consider under Section 83 of the Act.
Conclusion - Cash credit accounts, being liabilities, do not qualify as property and hence cannot be attached under Section 83.
It is directed to hold, adjudge and declare that the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017 (Exhibit F) is wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal - petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1252
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 - 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.
The impugned order dated 27.04.2024 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. 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 1251
Rejection of rectification application on the reason that that petitioner failed to submit the rectification application within the statutory period of six months as contemplated under Section 161 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- When coming to the reasons mentioned in Ext.P14 for rejecting the request of the petitioner, it was only because of the fact that, the rectification application was not filed through the portal within the time limit and therefore, the rectification order in respect of Ext.P8 could not have been passed. However, in Ext.P14, the fact that the petitioner had intimated this aspect by way of email as early as on 01.02.2024 is admitted, which is within the statutory period contemplated under Section 161 of the GST Act. As far as the invocation of the powers under Section 161 of the GST Act is concerned, it is not confined to a situation where, the aggrieved party approaches the authority with an application for rectification. When an error is brought to the notice of the officer concerned or otherwise the officer becomes aware of such error which is apparent on the face of record, the officer concerned can suo motu initiate the proceeding of rectification as well.
In this case, since there is admittedly a duplication of the orders based on two proceedings initiated alleging the same irregularities, there was an error apparent on the face of the records as far as Ext.P8 order is concerned. Therefore, it is a matter which ought to have been rectified as it results in two mutually conflicting orders passed on the same issue by the Officers of the same Department. Ext.P7 being the first order passed, by the officer concerned accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner, the second order namely Ext.P8, which is contrary to the finding in Ext.P7, could not have been passed.
This writ petition is disposed of, quashing Exts.P8 and P14, as the adjudication on the discrepancies highlighted in the show cause notices for the assessment year 2017-2018 stood concluded by way of Ext.P7 order.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1250
Challenge to Ext.P6 order issued by the 3rd respondent u/s 73 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017 - non-service of notice - petitioner contended that, even though the notice to the petitioner was uploaded in the portal, the same was not served upon the petitioner, in any of the methods contemplated u/s 169(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the SGST/CGST Act - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As far as the service of notice is concerned, Section 169 of the SGST/CGST Act, contemplates various methods for the same. Section169(1)(d) contemplates for service of notice by way of making it available in the common portal. Since the statute recognizes any one of the modes as referred to in Section169(1) as the proper service of notice, the effective service through any one of the modes would amount to sufficient notice for initiating or continuing proceedings under the Act.
The issue raised by the petitioner has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. The State Tax Officer -I, Kottarakkara [2024 (7) TMI 915 - KERALA HIGH COURT], wherein, it was held that, the service of notice by making it available on the portal, would be sufficient.
There are no justifiable reasons to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke statutory remedies, if any.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1249
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Levy of penalty under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is for the petitioner to file statutory appeal u/s 107 of GST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Authority.
Since this Court is of the view that the appeal is maintainable, the petitioner is permitted to re-file the appeal within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall comply with the requirements of the respective GST enactments as in force along with the application.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1248
Seeking grant of bail - petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation during trial - bulky documents - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Jain [2025 (5) TMI 925 - SC ORDER] and the arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
The accused-petitioner-Mahesh Sharma S/o Shri Harishankar Sharma, shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court - bail application allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1247
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-service of SCN - impugned order is challenged on the premise that 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 - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the materials, 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.
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.
Conclusion - 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 imposed - The matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1246
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-service of SCN - impugned order is challenged on the premise that 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 - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the materials, 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.
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.
Conclusion - 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 imposed - The matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1245
Challenge to assessment order - non-service of notice - neither the SCN 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 under the head “View Additional Notices and Order” tab - Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the materials, 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.
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,
Conclusion - 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.
The impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside - the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
