|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 1149
Challenge to SCN - challenge to notice on the ground that neither the ingredients as required u/s 74 of the Act are present nor have been alleged and, therefore, the notice is bad - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the language indicated therein clearly reflects that a reference to notice issued under Section 73 has been made and that the explanation filed, could not be verified and, therefore, further explanation was expected. The very fact that the respondents have sought further explanation and not a word has been indicated that the petitioner, inter alia has committed fraud, has given wilful misstatement or has suppressed material facts, which are the ingredients based on which provisions of Section 74 of the Act can be invoked necessarily shows lack of requisite ingredients in the notice.
In view of the fact situation, the jurisdictional aspect for invoking provisions of Section 74 of the Act insofar as the present notice is convened, being not present, the same cannot be sustained.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1148
Validity of bank attachment - mandate of providing the DRC-07 before passing the Order-in-Original - case of petitioner is that since DRC-07 has not been issued before passing the Order-in-Original, there is no need to challenge the Order-in-Original - HELD THAT:- In absence of challenging the Order-in-Original, no case is made out for interference. It is declined ot interfere for yet another reason. The Order-in-Original was issued on 06.01.2022. No appeal was preferred. The writ petition is also not filed within the stipulated time limit prescribed for preferring the appeal. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] has opined that 'The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also nonsuit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner choses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of course.'
Conclusion - In absence of any challenge to the Order-in-Original within the prescribed time and given the availability of alternative remedies, the writ petition is dismissed and no interference is made with the bank attachment founded upon the Order-in-Original.
Admission is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1073
Failure to file GSTR-01 returns and remit the collected tax to the Government - illegal holding the tax which resulted in denying of input tax credit the petitioner - official respondents (Respondents 1 to 5) state that the 6th respondent falls within the jurisdiction of the Central GST authorities and no action can be initiated as against the 6th respondent by the official respondents - HELD THAT:- This stand taken by the official respondents is contrary to Section 76 (1) of the Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 which mandates that ‘every person who has collected from any other person any amount as representing GST, and had not paid the said amount to the Government, shall forthwith pay it to the Government’ and if he does not do so, under subsection (2) thereof, ‘the proper officer may direct him through a notice to show cause as to why the said amount as specified in the notice should not be paid by him to the Government, and why a penalty equivalent to the amount specified to the notice should not be imposed on him under the Act’. Thus action can be taken under subsection (2) of section 76 against ‘every person’ including a person not registered under the JGST Act, 2017, if he does not, having received JGST from the petitioner, file any return under GSTR-01 and does not remit the same to the official respondents.
Therefore, it is not permissible for the official respondents to contend that they need not do anything since the 6th respondent is registered with the CGST authorities. It is their bounden duty to take action against the 6th respondent under sub-section (2) of Section 76 forthwith and there is no valid excuse for its inaction.
This writ petition is allowed, with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid by the 6th respondent to the petitioner within eight weeks; and the Respondents 1 to 5 are directed to initiate proceedings under Section 76 the Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 against Respondent 6 for collection of the tax from the petitioner and not crediting it to the Jharkhand State Government during the financial year 2020- 2021 and withholding the tax amount which is due to the Government, thereby preventing petitioner from claiming input tax credit of the amount so paid.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1072
Restoration of Petition to the file of this Court to make adjudication in terms of its decision in Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax vs. Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (5) TMI 1684 - SC ORDER] - After the decision in Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd. vide the Finance Act, 2025, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) has been amended with retrospective effect - parties submit that this Petition could be disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders dated 24 May 2019 and 6 November 2019 and remanding the matter to the Authority for Advance Ruling.
HELD THAT:- The impugned orders dated 24 May 2019 and 6 November 2019 set aside and the matter remanded to the Authority for Advance Ruling (Respondent No. 5) for fresh consideration in accordance with law after taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd. and retrospective amendment referred to above. Both parties are permitted to place additional material before the Authority for Advance Ruling within four weeks of the uploading of this order.
The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Authority for Advance Ruling on 14 July 2025 and file an authenticated copy of this order. The Authority for Advance Ruling is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1071
Challenge to one of the condition that was imposed in the tender notification dated 22.05.2025 imposing 18% GST payable by the participants in the tender - grievance of the petitioner is that in the tender notification dated 22.05.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, at clause No.23, the payment of 18% GST has been made mandatory - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the notification issued by the Central Government as well as the Circular issued by the Commissioner of HR&CE, it is quite apparent that collection of human hair does not attract any GST and the present auction notification pertains to collection of human hair. Therefore, the participants in the auction cannot be insisted to pay 18% GST. Accordingly, clause 23 alone is interfered and it is made clear that the 2nd respondent will not insist for the payment of 18% GST from the participants in the public auction.
This writ petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1070
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - seeking to quash the confiscation order - HELD THAT:- In view of there being an alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 107 of the KGST Act, against an order of confiscation under Section 130 of KGST Act, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and agrees with the arguments put forth by the learned AGA with regard to maintainability of the petition and alternative efficacious remedy being available to the petitioner.
This petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Appellate Authority by invoking appropriate provisions of law and seek for release of confiscated goods and the vehicle, if, so advised. If, any such application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be considered expeditiously not later than two weeks from the date of its filing.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1069
Challenge to demand u/s 73 of the CGST Act pertaining to the assessment year 2017-2018 issued by the 1st respondent - certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner in availing input tax credit - HELD THAT:- The position in this regard is made clear by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment, i.e., Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India [2024 (12) TMI 399 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. In the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court after extracting an assessment order passed by Asst. Commissioner of Central Tax, East Division-6, Bengaluru while considering the same issue, it was observed 'The case here clearly reveals that there has been no wrong availment of credit, and that the only mistake committed by the appellant was an inadvertent and technical one, where he had omitted to mention the IGST figures separately in Form GSTR 3A. The mistake was also insignificant because it is not in dispute that there was no outward supply attracting IGST that was effected by him.'
In the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order needs to be reconsidered to find out whether the irregularities highlighted against the petitioner pertained to the availing of input tax credit under wrong heads.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1068
Cancellation of GST registration - non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months - petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with all the formalities required as per proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - 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.
It is discernible from a reading of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 that if a person, who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form i.e. Form GST REG-20.
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 and 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 his GST registration. If the petitioner submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the petitioner for restoration of her GST registration in accordance with law and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1067
Fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit - SCN and impugned order have been passed by different authorities - consolidated SCN has been issued for multiple financial years.
Fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit - SCN and impugned order have been passed by different authorities - HELD THAT:- The nature of the allegations against the Petitioner in the present case, as is clear from the SCN as also the impugned order is that the Petitioner, in collusion with other entities has taken substantial benefit of ITC without sale of any goods or services. This strikes at the root of the Input Tax Credit facility which is recognised in the GST regime.
An appeal before the appellate authority is a full-fledged remedy provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
The contentions that the Petitioner wishes to raise can always be raised in appeal, in as much as this Court has already taken a view in Mukesh Kumar Garg vs. Union of India & Ors [2025 (5) TMI 922 - DELHI HIGH COURT] In the said case, the Court, has already taken a view in this regard that where cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC are concerned, considering the burden on the exchequer and the nature of impact on the GST regime, writ jurisdiction ought not to be usually exercised in such cases.
Consolidated SCN has been issued for multiple financial years - HELD THAT:- In so far as the issue pertaining to the issuance of consolidated SCN and impugned order for multiple financial years is concerned, the decision in W.P. (C) 4392/2025 titled Quest Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India [2025 (5) TMI 1357 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which may be passed by this Court shall bind the future proceedings as well, if the Petitioner chooses to go in appeal against the impugned order.
Conclusion - i) The writ petition challenging the impugned order is dismissed for lack of exceptional circumstances and availability of statutory appeal remedy. ii) Allegations of fraudulent ITC claims require detailed factual inquiry and are not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1066
Challenge to SCN and consequent order - vires of N/N. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 - Extension of time limitation for adjudication of SCN - Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court in Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others [2025 (3) TMI 1308 - DELHI HIGH COURT], under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter holding that 'The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In response to show cause notices dated 04th December, 2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall file its replies within thirty days. The hearing notices shall now not be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also be e- mailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing notice being received, the Petitioner would appear before the Department and make its submissions. The show cause notices shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.'
There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made to the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN was issued on 27th September, 2023 and the same was not brought to the notice of the Petitioner. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
The impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July 2025, to file the reply to SCN - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1065
Refund claim - no invoice raised in respect of services rendered by foreign affiliate to a domestic related entity - applicability of Circular No. 210/4/2024-GST issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which treats the value of such services as 'nil' when no invoice is raised - HELD THAT:- This petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking refund of the sum of Rs. 8,99,61,147/- in terms of the order in Thales India Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of CGST, Audit-II, Delhi & Anr. [2025 (2) TMI 245 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - As can be seen from the above decision, the Coordinate Bench has followed the earlier judgment in Metal One Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2024 (10) TMI 1534 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which dealt with an identical controversy and had quashed the Show Cause Notice therein dated 31st May, 2024.
Today, learned Counsel appearing for the Department submits that there is no challenge to the order dated 07th January, 2025 - In view thereof, let the refund of the Petitioner be processed and be credited within two months.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1064
Challenge to order passed u/s 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Submission has been made that once the proprietor of the petitioner firm had already died, there was no occasion for issuing a SCN in the name of petitioner firm and the proceedings initiated by the department are void ab initio - HELD THAT:- A perusal of Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would reveal that the same only deals with the liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in a case where the business is continued after the death, by the legal representative or where the business is discontinued, however, the provision does not deal with the fact as to whether the determination at all can take place against a deceased person and the said provision cannot and does not authorise the determination to be made against a dead person and recovery thereof from the legal representative.
Once the provision deals with the liability of a legal representative on account of death of the proprietor of the firm, it is sine qua non that the legal representative is issued a show cause notice and after seeking response from the legal representative, the determination should take place.
The determination made in the present case wherein the show cause notice was issued and the determination was made against the dead person without issuing notice to the legal representative, cannot be sustained - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1002
Refusal to entertain the appeal by reasons of failure on the part of the petitioners to make payment of pre-deposit as is required under Section 107(6) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - petitioners did not comply with the mandatory requirement for payment of pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- The petitioners had preferred an appeal challenging the said order. Although, the learned advocate for the petitioners insists that the appellate authority was duty bound to dispose of the appeal by passing a reasoned order having regard to the provisions contained in Section 107(12) of the said Act, it is however found that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 107(6) of the said Act, the appellate authority could not have accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner unless, the petitioner no.1 who was the appellant had paid the amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty arising from the impugned order as admitted by him and a sum equal to 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising out of the order (subject to maximum of 25 crores of rupees) in relation to which the appeal has been filed. The language of Section 107(6) of the said Act is distinct and clear and mandates that no appeal shall be filed under sub-Section 1 unless the appellant has paid the amount.
If the petitioner did not comply with the above directive for mandatory pre-deposit, there is no scope for the appellate authority to entertain the appeal.
Conclusion - Since, the appeal was not entertained, question of the appellate authority disposing the appeal by stating the points of determination and the decision thereon could not have arisen. The petitioners have not been able to make out any special case for entertaining the writ petition.
There are no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1001
Violation of principles of natural justice - adjudicating authority did not consider the submissions and the relevant judgments relied upon by the petitioner - appealable order under the provisions of Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 or not - HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that an appellate remedy having been provided, the petitioner having failed to take benefit of such appellate remedy, there being no appropriate explanation in approaching this Court belatedly and the only explanation being the pendency of an arbitral proceedings, the petitioner has not been able to justify or provide appropriate explanation for the delay in approaching this Court. On such ground ordinarily, there is no scope to entertain the present writ petition.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appellate authority in accordance with law and, if an appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from date along with an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority having regard to the observations made hereinabove and upon considering the explanation for the delay shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits, subject to compliance of other formalities by the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1000
Mode of service of notice - no service was effected by adhering to the mode of service provided for in Section 169(1) Clauses (a) to (c) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - condonation of delay in filing appeal.
Mode of service of notice - no service was effected by adhering to the mode of service provided for in Section 169(1) Clauses (a) to (c) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in this case, the order issued under Section 73 of the said Act for the tax period of 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 was preceded with a show-cause notice. The show-cause was duly uploaded on the portal. The petitioner had duly responded to the show-cause and thus, had notice of the proceeding.
The unambiguous and plain language employed in Section 169(1) read with sub-Sections 2 and 3 makes it amply clear that the service of notice can be effected by any of the modes provided for in Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 169(1) of the said Act. The only restriction in my view in effecting service, is found in Clause 169(1)(f) since, the opening words of the said Clause requires that “if none of the modes as aforesaid is practicable’, that is to say modes of service provided for in Clauses (a) to (e) is not practicable, then the mode of service as provided in Clause (f) can be applied. Thus, having regard to the clear language employed in Section 169 of the said Act, no view, contrary to the intention expressed in the above section is acceptable.
The contention that service of notice of the order under Section 73 of the said Act on the petitioner was not complete without a personal service thereof on the petitioner as per the mode provided in Section 169(1) Clauses (a) to (c) of the said Act cannot be accepted.
Condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- The appellate authority had mechanically by relying on the provisions of sub-Section 4 of Section 107 of the said Act and by treating that it has no power to condone the delay beyond the extended period of one month, had rejected the appeal - Division Bench of High Court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty & ors. vs. Union of India [2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has already taken a view on the power of the appellate authority to condone the delay beyond the extended period of one month.
Conclusion - i) Service by uploading on the portal is valid and complete service under Section 169(1)(d). ii) The appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal for delay without proper consideration of condonation; the order dated 24th December 2024 is set aside.
The impugned order set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 999
Service of SCN - Challenge to order passed u/s 73 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017 - even though the notice to the petitioner was uploaded in the portal, the same was not served upon the petitioner - violation of 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. Section 169(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 Section 169(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.
-
2025 (6) TMI 998
Seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner - grant of refund of IGST paid along with interest - HELD THAT:- No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2025 referred, seeking for refund, is considered on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and after giving due consideration to the documents produced by the petitioner, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.
This Court directs the 2nd respondent to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2025 seeking for refund as stated supra, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 997
Confiscation u/s 130 of the GST Act - propriety in release of goods already confiscated u/s 130 of the GST Act, pending consideration of the appeal - HELD THAT:- As the goods are not reportedly sold, there are no reason to deny the opportunity to the petitioner to avail the option of getting the goods released, by making the payment of fine in lieu of the confiscation as mentioned in Ext.P8 order. Such an exercise would not cause any prejudice to the State as well.
This writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to release the goods which are the subject matter of Ext.P8 order, upon the petitioner paying the fine in lieu of confiscation. The payment shall be done within an outer limit of one month, and upon making the payment, the goods shall be released immediately.
-
2025 (6) TMI 996
Challenge to assessment order - denial of Input Tax Credit - It is specific case of the petitioner that Input Tax Credit has been denied as the supplier has collected the tax from the petitioner and failed to remit the same to the credit of the Government - invocation of extended period of limitation u/s 74 of the respective GST enactments - HELD THAT:- The argument of the petitioner that there has no case made out for invoking extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments cannot be countenanced as Input Tax Credit, that was availed, was provisional. The law is settled on this aspect.
In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka vs. M/s.Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited [2023 (3) TMI 533 - SUPREME COURT] has held 'the genuineness of the transaction has to be proved as the burden to prove the genuineness of transaction as per section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003 would be upon the purchasing dealer.'
Conclusion - i) The writ petition challenging the assessment order under Section 74 was dismissed for lack of merit. ii) The denial of Input Tax Credit was upheld as per statutory provisions governing provisional credit and reversal.
There is no merits in the present Writ Petition and this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 995
Grant of bail at the initial stage of investigation - involvement of the respondent in other pending investigations and proposals for prosecution by different Commissionerates of Central Tax impacts the bail order or not - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, no complaint has been filed against the respondent. Despite the fact that the investigation was taken up by the Department way back in the year 2019, no criminal complaint has been filed till date. Thus, even otherwise, had the respondent been in custody, he would have been entitled for default bail on the department not completing the investigation. It is not alleged anywhere that the respondent, pursuant to being admitted to bail, had misused the liberty.
It is the petitioner department’s own position that the respondent has deposited with the department a sum of Rs. 1 crore in cash on 11.12.2019 Rs. 2.5 crore in cash on 23.12.2019, and Rs. 0.50 crore in cash on 24.12.2019. That being said, the respondent has already deposited a sum of Rs. 4 crores with the department pursuant to the order granting bail, which is more than 10% of the disputed liability. The same has been recorded in the order passed by this Court on 18.12.2024.
This Court finds no reason to cancel the bail granted to the respondent - Petition dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
