|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (7) TMI 197
Taxability - fee collected by the applicant from employees who proceed on leave without allowance for engaging in private employment - fees collected from Self-financing educational institutions for conducting departmental inspection for issuing NOC/EC for starting new self-financing Medical, Nursing, Dental colleges' or starting new Courses and for enhancement of seats - rate of GST.
Taxability on fee collected by the applicant from employees who proceed on leave without allowance for engaging in private employment - HELD THAT:- The collection of fees from Medical and Paramedical Officers for availing Leave Without Allowance (LWA) does not amount to a “supply” under Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. The act of granting leave arises out of an employer-employee relationship governed by service rules, and the levy of such fees is an administrative measure introduced as part of a broader public policy aimed at deterring indiscriminate availing of LWA, which adversely impacts the delivery of essential public health services. The fee does not involve any provision of goods or services, nor is it collected in the course or furtherance of any business activity. There is no contractual obligation on the part of the applicant to tolerate the act of taking leave, and the payment made by the employee is not in the nature of consideration for any service rendered. As clarified in CBIC Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST dated 03.08.2022, such deterrent or penal recoveries, including forfeiture of bond amounts or notice pay, are not consideration for any supply and are therefore not taxable.
In view of the above, it is held that the fees collected in this context do not constitute taxable supply under GST law, and accordingly, no GST is leviable on such transactions.
Taxability of Inspection fees - HELD THAT:- The affiliation-like services provided by the Directorate of Medical Education-namely, the inspection of facilities, faculty, infrastructure, and the issuance of No Objection Certificates (NOC) or Essentiality Certificates (EC) to private, self-financing medical, nursing, and dental colleges-are functionally and legally similar to the affiliation services discussed in the circular. These services are rendered for a consideration to private institutions for the purpose of enabling or expanding their commercial educational operations. Such services are not rendered to students or for the purpose of imparting education, but rather constitute a regulatory assessment and grant of eligibility to operate. Accordingly, following the same interpretation adopted in Circular 234, the services rendered by DME to self-financing institutions are also liable to GST at the rate of 18%.
In terms of classification, such inspection and certification services do not fall under SAC 9992 (education services) but are appropriately classifiable under SAC 999799 - “Other services nowhere else classified”. As per N/N. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), services under SAC 999799 attract GST at the standard rate of 18% - the fees collected by the Directorate of Medical Education from self-financing institutions for conducting inspections and issuing NOC/ECs constitute a taxable supply of service under GST and attract GST at the rate of 18%.
-
2025 (7) TMI 196
Exemption from GST - taxability of Yoga course fees collected on behalf of the exempted Yoga courses marketed - applicability of N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, specifically Entry No. 80, read with CBIC Circular No. 66/40/2018-GST dated 26.09.2018 - HELD THAT:- The applicant has claimed that it collects the Yoga course fee on behalf of the Yoga institutions and therefore should not be liable to pay GST on that portion of the transaction. Implicitly, this suggests reliance on the provisions of Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which allow exclusion of certain expenses incurred by a supplier acting as a pure agent of the recipient of supply.
However, in the present case, the applicant has not submitted any documentary evidence, contractual agreements, or transaction-specific details to demonstrate that it fulfils all the mandatory conditions prescribed under Rule 33. These include the existence of a contractual arrangement with the recipients authorizing the applicant to incur expenses on their behalf, separate indication of such amounts in the invoice, and strict pass-through of actual costs without markup or benefit. In the absence of such evidence, it is not possible for this Authority to conclude that the applicant is operating as a pure agent within the meaning of Rule 33. Accordingly, the benefit of exclusion from taxable value under Rule 33 cannot be extended to the Yoga course fee component in the current circumstances.
A third party organization which markets an exempted Yoga course is not exempted from GST for the Yoga course fees component. However, if the service offered by them is in the nature of pure agent within the scope of Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017, they would be entitled for exemption from GST for the Yoga course fees component.
-
2025 (7) TMI 195
Classification of goods - rate of GST - Rooter Trainer Cup, made of plastic, used exclusively for propagation of plants, which an agricultural activity - to be classified under HSN 8201 90 00 or otherwise?
Classification of goods - HELD THAT:- The item in question is made of plastic, and “Plastics and Articles thereof” fall under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff. The Chapter Notes to Chapter 39 do not exclude the subject product or any goods related to agricultural activity from its scope. Chapters 3901 to 3914 cover various types of plastics in primary forms, while Chapter 3915 pertains to waste, parings, and scraps of plastics. Chapter 3916 covers monofilaments. Chapters 3916 to 3925 describe various plastic products with specific classifications, none of which include the item under discussion, viz., rooter trainer cups or similar agriculture-related plastic products. Tariff heading 3926, which is the last 4-digit heading under Chapter 39, covers “Other Articles of Plastics.”
Since the product in question does not fall under any of the preceding specific headings, it is appropriately classified under this residual heading. Upon verification of -the 6-digit classifications under heading 3926, it is found that there is no specific entry covering the subject product, and therefore it falls under the residual sub-heading 3926 90 and further under the residual entry 3926 90 99.
The product in question, namely the “Rooter Trainer Cup” made of plastic, is appropriately classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3926 90 99, which shall be the applicable classification for the purposes of levy of GST.
Applicable rate of tax - HELD THAT:- The item appears to fall under SI. No. 45 of Schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, which reads as: 'Other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914 [other than bangles of plastic, PVC belt conveyor, plastic beads and plastic tarpaulins]'. This entry attracts Central GST at the rate of 14%, and an equal rate is applicable under the corresponding State GST notification. Further, Sl. No. 137 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 provides exemption to agricultural implements that are manually operated or animal-driven, falling under Chapter 8201. Since the item in question neither qualifies under Chapter 8201 nor satisfies the condition of being a manually operated or animal-driven implement, the exemption is not applicable in this case. Notification No. 41/2017-C.T.(Rate) (14-11-2017) omitted S. No.45 from Schedule IV w.e.f. 15.11.2017. Also, in S. No. 111, for the entry in column (3), the entry “Other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914 [other than bangles of plastic, plastic beads and feeding bottles]” was substituted. In practice, Schedule III, Sl.. 111 of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) now covers 3926 at CGST 9% and SGST 9%.
-
2025 (7) TMI 194
Taxability of medicines and medical supplies to patients - applicability of N/N. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 - Supply of medicines, implants and other supplies to inpatients - Supplies made to patients who are not admitted to the hospital but who receive treatment as outpatients - Supply of medicines and other supplies to patients based on a doctor's prescription, specifically for consumption at home and during follow-up care -
Taxability - medicines and medical supplies to patients - applicability of N/N. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 - HELD THAT:- In accordance with the provisions of Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, where the supply of medicines or medical items is naturally bundled with healthcare services-such as in the course of diagnosis, treatment, or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality, or pregnancy in any recognised system of medicine in India-the entire supply qualifies as a composite supply. In such cases, the principal supply is the provision of healthcare services by a clinical establishment, an authorised medical practitioner, or paramedics. Consequently, any medicines and medical supplies that are naturally bundled with such healthcare services inherit the nature of the principal supply and therefore become eligible for GST exemption - This interpretation is also supported by Circular No. 32/06/2018-GST dated 12-02-2018, wherein it was clarified that “Food supplied to the in-patients as advised by the doctor/nutritionist is a part of the composite supply of healthcare and not separately taxable. “Accordingly, the underlying principle is that healthcare services are exempt from GST. When medicines and medical products are supplied as part of a naturally bundled package with healthcare services, the entire supply is treated as a composite supply, and the exemption available to healthcare services under GST applies to the entire transaction, including the medicines and medical products.
In the case of outpatients, hospitals generally prescribe medicines but do not administer or remain involved in their continuous treatment. It is entirely up to the patient to decide whether to follow the prescription, and if so, from where to procure the medicines. The choice to purchase or not, or to source them from an external pharmacy, lies solely with the patient. Because the hospital does not exercise control over the patient's continuing treatment after the consultation, such supplies of medicines or consumables cannot be said to be naturally bundled with healthcare services. Consequently, they do not qualify as a composite supply. As a result, the GST exemption applicable to healthcare services does not extend to such supplies of medicines or allied goods, and these are accordingly treated as taxable supplies under GST.
Supply of medicines, implants and other supplies to inpatients - HELD THAT:- The supply of these items are naturally bundled with supply of health care services as discussed above. Therefore, such supplies are eligible for exemption under Entry No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 subject to the conditions stipulated in the Notification.
Supplies made to patients who are not admitted to the hospital but who receive treatment as outpatients - HELD THAT:- The medicines and other supplies provided to patients are naturally bundled with the underlying health care services. Importantly, the law does not create a distinction between 'inpatients' and 'outpatients' for the purpose of granting exemption. Instead, the eligibility for exemption must be assessed on the basis of whether the supplies are part of a composite supply of medical services. Therefore, where a hospital provides treatment to patients without admitting them, such as in the case of dialysis, dressing, chemotherapy, minor surgeries, or other similar procedures-including pre-admission care like services rendered in casualty-the exemption shall apply, provided that the medicines and supplies are naturally bundled with the delivery of health care services. However, it is important to note that the exemption is limited to cases where the supplies are part of a naturally bundled package of health care services delivered within the hospital.
Supply of medicines and other supplies to patients based on a doctor's prescription, specifically for consumption at home and during follow-up care - HELD THAT:- These supplies are not naturally bundled with the provision of health care services. Since the hospital's involvement is limited to prescribing and dispensing the medicines-without continuous treatment or direct supervision-the supply of medicines in this context does not constitute a composite supply of health care services. Accordingly, such supplies fall outside the ambit of health care services as defined for GST purposes, and therefore, are not eligible for the exemption granted to health care services.
However, the exemption from GST on supplies made to inpatients or outpatients as part of their treatment within the hospital does not apply when medicines or other items are sold to them with GST. In such cases, since GST has been collected, it must be paid to the government as per Section 76 of the CGST Act, 2017.
-
2025 (7) TMI 193
Taxability - potable drinking water supplied through tanker lorries to both Government institutions and private customers - applicability of GST exemption under Serial No. 99 of N/N. 02/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- The customers include Government institutions, Indian Railways, local authorities, other Government offices, and private customers such as hotels and contractors. The applicant collects water from various sources such as dug wells and bore wells and carries out an initial purification process by filtering to remove suspended solids, organic matter, etc. The second phase of processing involves chlorination at appropriate levels to bring the water up to drinking water standards. Proper testing is also conducted by the applicant before supplying the water to customers. The supply of water is not in sealed containers but is filled into tanker lorries with capacities ranging from 2,000 kiloliters to 30,000 kiloliters and transported to the customers' premises, where it is pumped into their tanks or containers for further use.
Whether the “drinking water” in the instant case is eligible to qualify for exemption as per serial No. 99 of Notification No. 02/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017? - HELD THAT:- The process of purification and the contents dissolved in the above categories of water have no similarities with the drinking water supplied by the applicant. Chlorination and filtration are the basic purification methods used by any public utility engaged in water distribution to make the water potable. Also, the applicant does not supply the water in sealed containers; rather, it is supplied in bulk quantities through tanker lorries. Hence, the drinking water supplied by the applicant is not included in any of the categories of water specifically excluded from exemption under the GST Act as per serial No. 99 of N/N. 02/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017.
The drinking water supplied by the applicant in bulk to various customers, including Government institutions, through tanker lorries having capacities ranging from 2,000 kiloliters to 30,000 kiloliters, is eligible for exemption from tax under GST as per entry at serial No. 99 of N/N. 02/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017.
-
2025 (7) TMI 192
Supply or not - cancellation of a lease agreement, originally executed under the pre-GST regime - Taxability of proportionate amount (refund) corresponding to the unexpired lease periods - HELD THAT:- It is evident that while leasing of property constitutes a supply of service under the GST Act, the cancellation of a lease, in itself, does not constitute a taxable activity under the Act. In the present case, as outlined in the application, the applicant is receiving a proportionate amount corresponding to the unutilised period of the lease.
The taxability of similar transactions has been addressed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST dated 03-08-2022. In this circular, while clarifying the GST liability on compensation paid for cancellation of coal blocks, the CBIC held that 'The compensation was given to them for such cancellation, not under a contract between the allottees and the Government, but under the provisions of the statute and in pursuance of the Supreme Court Order. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that the prior allottees of the coal blocks supplied a service to the Government by way of agreeing to tolerate the cancellation of the allocations made to them by the Government or that the compensation paid by the Government for such cancellation in pursuance to the order of the Supreme Court was a consideration for such service. Therefore, the compensation paid for cancellation of coal blocks pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in the above case was not taxable.'
The gist of the is that the cancellation of coal blocks was not based on any agreement where prior allottees consented to or agreed to tolerate the cancellation in exchange for compensation. Instead, the cancellation was imposed by the Government under statutory provisions and pursuant to a Supreme Court order. The compensation paid was not contractual but statutory, and therefore did not involve any supply of service (such as agreeing to tolerate an act) under GST law. Hence, the compensation paid was not taxable under GST.
Proceeding on similar lines, the refund received by the applicant for the unexpired portion of the lease period is not liable to GST, as it does not involve any supply of service. The transaction does not entail any agreement to perform, refrain from, or tolerate an act, and is merely a return of consideration for the unutilized lease period.
The cancellation of the lease agreement, as described above, shall not be treated as a supply under the provisions of Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017.
-
2025 (7) TMI 191
Levy of GST - commission earned by the applicant for conducting cardamom auction - HELD THAT:- Going by the nature of activities performed by the applicant, they do not merely cause the sale of goods on behalf of their clients, the cardamom growers and traders. They provide necessary storage and auction facilities including electronic weighing machine and moisture meters for pooling the cardamom in places convenient to the farmers. They pool cardamom from different origins, grade them and convert them to lots for auction. They draw samples from these lots for the purpose of inspection of Spice Board licenced dealers to inspect at the auction house of the Spices Board - As per rule 10(1)(j) of the Cardamom (Licensing and Marketing) Rules, 1987”the auctioneer shall not charge more than one per cent of the sale price as commission for the services rendered by him. The taxability of this commission is the issue raised in this application.
As regards the eligibility to the exemption under S1.No 54(g) of Notification No 12/2017 Central Tax (R) dated 28.06.2017, it is seen that the exemption is available to the services provided by a commission agent for sale or purchase of agricultural produce. The respondent company has in effect argued that the words 'auctioneer' and 'commission agent' are interchangeable and the reference to 'commission agent' in Entry SI. No 54(g) of Notification No 12/2017 Central Tax (R) can include even an auctioneer. This Authority are not impressed by this argument. It is trite law that exemption notifications are to be strictly interpreted. A notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. In the case of Entry SI. No 54(g) of Notification No 12/2017 Central Tax (R), the exemption given is to the APMC or Board or Commission Agent. As mentioned, a commission agent and an auctioneer are no doubt mercantile agents but the functions performed by them are vastly different.
Hence by the nature of the services mentioned under SAC 9986(relating to entry 54 of exemption Notification No. 12/2017) sales commission and auction commission will not get classified under this SAC code. Sales commission and auction commissions rightly falls under SAC codes 996111-“Services provided for a fee/ commission or contract basis on wholesale trade or 996211-Services provided for a fee/ commission or contract basis on retail trade” (relating to Entry 5 of Notification Number 11/2017 (CGST Rate).
The applicant's services fall squarely under Entry No.5 of the Notification Number 11/2017/CT (Rate), Therefore, where a specific entry is available under Entry Number 5 of it supersedes the general entry of the Notification 12/2017 (CGST Rate) and the commission earned by the applicant is liable to GST at the applicable rate.
-
2025 (7) TMI 139
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six or more months - petitioner fails to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fails to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time - no date for personal hearing was ever notified - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As per Section 29(2)(c) of the Act, 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 Act, for the reason that the petitioner did not submit returns for a period of 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, may consider to drop the proceedings and pass an appropriate 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 two months from today seeking restoration of her GST registration. If the petitioner submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to Rule 22 (4) of the Rules, 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 (7) TMI 138
Challenge to pre-show cause notice dated 18th July, 2024 issued in Form GSTDRC-01A, threatening to invoke proceedings under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 in respect of the tax period 2019-20 - HELD THAT:- Noting that the petitioner seeks to challenge the show cause issued under Section 74 of the said Act and also considering the fact that the initiation of proceedings are based on alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit in respect of the supplies effected by the sellers whose registration has been cancelled with retrospective effect, the writ petition should be heard. However, having regard to the fact that the Amnesty Scheme introduced by the respondents in terms of insertion of Section 128A in the said Act, is due to expire on 30th June, 2025, and noting that the petitioner may have an arguable case, the liberty should be afforded to the petitioner to avail the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme introduced pursuant to insertion of Section 128A in the said Act without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the present writ petition.
In the event, the petitioner applies before the appropriate authority for availing the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme, the concerned authority shall permit the petitioner to avail such benefits by treating the show cause issued in Form GST DRC 01 dated 5th February, 2025 to be under Section 73 of the said Act. All further steps including the deposit of tax pursuant to the aforesaid shall, however, abide by the result of the petition.
Let affidavit-in-opposition to the present writ petition be filed within a period of six weeks from date - Liberty to mention for inclusion in the list after expiry of the period for filing of affidavits.
-
2025 (7) TMI 137
Rejection of partial refund - entitlemnet to the benefit of delayed filing of return on account of its claim for input tax credit for the period upto 2021, provided such return has been filed on or before 30th November, 2021, consequent upon insertion of Section 16(5) in the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The scope of application of Section 16(4) of the said Act has since stood altered to a great extent especially having regard to Section 16(5) being inserted retrospectively with effect from 1st July, 2017. Consequent upon the insertion of Section 16(5) in the said Act, the time for filing of return under Section 39 of the said Act for the tax period 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 has been extended till 30th November, 2021.
The orders issued both by the proper officer and appellate authority cannot be sustained and the matter is remanded back to the proper officer for re-adjudication of the issue having regard to the insertion of Section 16(5) of the said Act in the statute book with retrospective effect from 1st July, 2017.
The orders passed by the appellate authority on 21st February, 2024 and the proper officer on 14th April, 2023 are set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 136
Eligibility to pass Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the strength of invoices without actual supply of goods - reasons to believe - gross violation of provision of Section 132(1) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is the admitted fact that the respondent No. 2 issued authorization of arrest of the petitioner to the respondent No. 3. On perusal of the grounds of arrest, it appears that certain reasons have been assigned for effecting the arrest. But it cannot be denied that there was no proper compliance of Section 41/41-A of Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 35(3) of BNSS, which are mandatorily required to be followed. From the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Radhika Agarwal [2025 (2) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], it is evident that though the GST is a special enactment, but the same cannot be considered as a complete Code in itself as regards to the provision of search, seizure and arrest and as stated above, the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable unless it is expressly or impliedly barred by the provision of the said Act. But, here in the instant case, it is seen that there is no compliance of Section 41/41-A of Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 35(3) of BNSS, which is mandatorily required to be followed as per the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT] and reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI [2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT].
It is also an admitted position that though the grounds of arrest were communicated to the present petitioner, but there is no communication of “reasons to believe” which ought to have been recorded before issuing authorization letter of arrest. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Radhika Agarwal, the requirement of furnishing the “reasons to believe” to the arrestee is not a mere formality but a substantive safeguard, enabling the person concerned to challenge the legality of the arrest in accordance with law. But, here in the instant case, though it is stated that the “reasons to believe” were duly recorded by the competent authority prior to issuance of the authorization to arrest, but there is nothing on record to show that the same were communicated to the petitioner either at the time of arrest or along with the grounds of arrest. Such non-communication of foundational reasons vitiates the process and undermines the safeguards guaranteed under law, rendering the arrest procedurally infirm.
It is also an admitted fact that while the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner at the time of arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, but the "reasons to believe" forming the basis of the arrest authorization were not communicated to the present petitioner. Furthermore, it is also a fact that the accused/petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.06.2025, but there was no prayer made by the respondent authorities for custodial interrogation or police remand of the petitioner during his custody.
This Court finds it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of interim bail to the accused/petitioner till disposal of the present criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - List the matter after the ensuing summer vacation on a date to be fixed by the Registry.
-
2025 (7) TMI 135
Classification of goods - Refusal to classify the 'Flavoured Milk' under Chapter 4 of First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner came to this Court to get an Advance Rulling of the product in question i.e. 'Flavoured Milk'. Now the Order-in-Original has been passed, therefore, stage of grant of Advance Rulling has gone. Now the petitioner is required to challenge the Order-in-Original by way of appeal to challenge the classification done by the adjudicating authority.
The petition stands disposed off without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
-
2025 (7) TMI 134
Declination to refund of unilateral debit of the disputed interest - pending consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (7) of Section 107 plainly contemplates that where the appellant has paid the amount under sub-section (6), the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed. Therefore, on examining the said provision coupled with the order passed by the 2nd respondent, this Court is of the view that unilateral debit undertaken by the Assessing Officer from the cash ledger towards the disputed amount of the creditor is not only erroneous and without jurisdiction and contrary to the mandate provided under sub-section (7) of Section 107. Therefore, this Court is of the view that order of rejection need not be sustainable and liable to be set aside.
The impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the respondent No. 1, is hereby set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 133
Seeking grant of bail - sale of tyres and tubes on prices lower than their values - evasion of tax - offence u/s 132(l)(a), (e), (f) and (I) read with Section 132(l)(i), 132(iv)(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Jain [2025 (5) TMI 925 - SC ORDER], Vishal Agarwal [2024 (10) TMI 1672 - SC ORDER (LB)], Ashutosh Garg [2024 (8) TMI 189 - SC ORDER] & Ratnambar Kaushik [2022 (12) TMI 263 - SUPREME COURT] and considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 04.04.2025, and that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner on 27.05.2025. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132, the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extent to five years and fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration of almost two and half months and completion of trial, any event, would take some time. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or Influencing. The trial of the case may take considerable time.
Taking into consideration the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Jain, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case that the present petitioner is in custody since 4-4-2025. The petitioner is suffering from age related issues. Charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner. Without expressing anything on the merits/demerits of the case, it is deemed just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
The bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner Ankur Agrawal S/o Late Shri Naresh Chandra, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to fulfilment of conditions impsed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 132
Challenge to SCN and consequent order - challenge to vires of N/N. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March 2023, 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 as also the N/N. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 - impugned order has been passed in haste without duly considering the reply as well as the documents filed by the Petitioner and has mechanically confirmed the demand of the remaining amount - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court has considered the submissions made and has perused the impugned order. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order has been passed after duly considering the reply of the Petitioner.
Upon considering the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the same does not merit any interference of this Court and a challenge, if any, shall be taken up by the Petitioner before the appellate authority in appeal - the Petitioner is granted time till 15th July, 2025, to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 131
Challenge to notice for conducting audit - Case of revenue is that petitioner’s documents for the financial years in question were obtained from the enforcement authority and considered - HELD THAT:- Opposite party No. 1 is directed to furnish copies of the documents obtained from the enforcement authority for purpose of having conducted the audit. Till two weeks after the copies are furnished no action be taken on the audit report.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (7) TMI 59
Applicability and the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Services of President and Members) Rules, 2023, which postulates the exhaustive mechanism for the procedure in appointing the Member of the said GSTAT - HELD THAT:- The provisions contained in Rule 3 does not in express terms postulate the role of reconstituted Committee or the procedures to be adopted by it in the event one or more Members of the earlier Committee signify their intention to demit the office. The expression “as it may deem fit” has to be construed in a more pragmatic manner and to be ascribed the meaning in a reasonable way. Such expression cannot put deterrence to the action to be taken by the statutory Committee nor should the restrictive interpretation be assigned to whittle down the object of constituting the Committee. The Court cannot overlook the onerous duty to be discharged by the member which undertaking the exercise for selection to such an important post, which requires a high degree of integrity, the knowledge and/or experience, as such post ordains the solemn duty of adjudication of the rights of the rival parties within the framework of the statute as well as the Constitutional provisions.
The suitability and integrity is the hallmark in any appointment in a Court or a Tribunal and, therefore, a synergy is required to be created amongst various clauses and sub-rules in Rule 3 of the said Rules, 2023. The Committee comprises of persons holding a high degree of office in Constitutional field, therefore, their actions have to be tested on the anvil of keeping the same in the mind.
The Authority has to act within the precincts of the provisions of the law and in the event there is no express fetter put in the Authority if the reconstituted Search-cum-Selection Committee decided to start the process de novo, we do not find any statutory obstacles having put in this regard. We have been taken to a confidential reports received by the Committee which cannot be said to be a mere piece of paper and if the Committee decided to undertake an exercise of scrutinizing the applications and selecting the persons for personal interaction on the basis of inputs received from the Intelligence Bureau (IB), we do not find that there can be any illegality perceived from the action of the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
There are no merit in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2025 (7) TMI 58
Legality and validity of Annexure ‘P4’ and ‘P5’ of the writ application - proceedings for willful disobedience and disregard shown to the order of this Court - HELD THAT:- No rejoinder to the show cause filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 6 has been filed by the petitioner, therefore, the statements made therein remained uncontroverted. In the circumstances, this Court accepts the reasons shown by respondent nos. 5 and 6. The notice for initiation of contempt is not required to be proceeded with.
This Court directs the State respondents to pay simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of recovery of the amount till the date of refund to the petitioner. The said payment shall be made within a period of six weeks from today - since it is noticed that the recovery was made illegally and that has resulted in litigation, the respondents are directed to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner within the same period.
This writ application stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2025 (7) TMI 57
Refund of unutilized input tax credit u/s 54(3) of the CGST Act and WBGST Act, read with Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - rejection of additional documents without assigning any cogent reason as to their relevancy or admissibility - principal grievance of the Petitioner is that the Appellate Authority failed to consider crucial documents, including shipping bills and other evidentiary records submitted during the appellate proceedings in support of the refund claim - HELD THAT:- Upon a careful examination of the submissions made by the respective parties and scrutiny of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellate Authority ought to have duly examined the documents placed before it by the Petitioner in support of the refund claim.
Rule 112 of the CGST Rules, 2017 empowers the Appellate Authority to admit additional evidence under certain circumstances. Subrule (4) of Rule 112, being a non-obstante provision, permits the Appellate Authority to direct production of documents or examination of witnesses if necessary for effective adjudication. In the present case, the Appellate Authority rejected the additional documents without assigning any cogent reason as to their relevancy or admissibility.
Further, the Respondents have not demonstrated that the documents submitted by the Petitioner were either irrelevant or inadmissible for a just adjudication. The Court is thus of the opinion that the Appellate Authority failed to exercise its discretion judiciously and in accordance with law by refusing to consider the additional documents submitted by the Petitioner.
The impugned order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Siliguri Appeal Commissionerate, is hereby set aside and quashed - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (7) TMI 56
Confication - redemption fine - penalty - opportunity of hearing not provided to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The action complained of is not merely arbitrary, but is in the teeth of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017.
In that view of the matter, the order of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Competent Authority/ Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Dehradun to redo the process from the stage of issuance of show-cause notice.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
........
|
9911796707
