|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 15446 Records
-
2025 (4) TMI 1574
Cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration license on the ground of discrepancies noticed during physical verification - HELD THAT:- Since the show cause notice has been adjudicated partially in favour of the petitioner hence only issue regarding the cancellation of the GST license of the petitioner is being considered in this writ petition. The entire process for cancellation of the license was initiated after the visit note prepared by Shri Avinash Joshi, Superintendent, CGST and C.X.Range-2 Division IV Indore - the officer did not record the statements of the nearby shop owners. This visit note is only signed by Shri Avinash Joshi not by any other witness. Shri Joshi ought to have recorded the statement of the nearby shop owner and obtained their signature in the visit notes as a witness. It appears that no one was accompanied with him from the GST department on 15.05.2023 at the time of the search. Had any person visited with him, he would have countersigned this visit note, therefore, such a visit note cannot be relied on for taking such a drastic action of cancellation of license.
In the case of Roxy Enterprises [2023 (12) TMI 1098 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi has considered Rule 25 of GST Rules 2017 which deals with the physical verification of business premises in certain cases. According to Rule 25, the physical verification of the business premises should be done in the presence of the person, and it should be uploaded in the form GST REG-30 on the common portal within 15 working days following the date of such verification.
The entire impugned action of the respondents is based on the presumption that the firm is bogus because the office/place of business was found locked.
The order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Superintendent Officer (respondent No.5), the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.4), and the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by Joint Commissioner (respondent No.3) are unsustainable and liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed - petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1573
Demand for alleged violation of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice returnable on 07.05.2025 for final disposal.
By way of ad interim relief, no coercive action shall be initiated by the respondent during the pendency of this petition. Direct service through Email is permitted.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1572
Rejection of application made by the writ petitioner for voluntary cancellation of its Goods and Services Tax - no reason provided in SCN - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order fails to assign any reason whatsoever and which may have indicated what could have possibly weighed upon the respondents in not acceding to the prayer for voluntary cancellation.
The impugned order dated 20 November 2024 is hereby quashed. The application for cancellation as made shall consequently be taken up for consideration afresh and be disposed of by the competent authority in accordance with law.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1524
Seeking quashing of impugned order - GST levy on mining activity effective 01.07.2017 - HELD THAT:- Counsel on behalf of both the parties are agreed that the present impugned order dated January 25, 2025 may be quashed and the matter may be remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to place its case before the Adjudicating Authority.
The impugned order dated January 25, 2025 is quashed and set-aside with a direction upon the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1523
Levy of GST - clear case of employer-employee relationship, which is apparent from the application of the provisions relating to employees under the Income Tax Act, 1961 - HELD THAT:- As only a show cause notice has been issued, the petitioner can raise all pleas and contentions before the authority which had issued the show cause notice. The same will be examined effectively and fairly.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1522
Extension of time limit for issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) - Violation of principles of natural justice - alleged non-service of the show cause notice and denial of personal hearing - Challenge to N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December 2023 and N/N. 56/2023-State Tax dated 16th January 2024 issued u/s 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) read with Section 168A of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The issues raised in this Writ Petition are pending adjudication in several other Writ Petitions, including Writ Petition No. 5146 of 2024 [2025 (3) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Writ Petition No.5471 of 2024 [2025 (3) TMI 250 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has in fact already struck down these Notifications. Though on this issue, the Telangana High Court has held in favour of the Petitioner before it, the Telangana High Court came to the conclusion that because of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Re-Cognizance for extension of limitation [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER], the assessment was not time barred. This order of the Telangana High Court has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and which is pending adjudication. Once these are the facts, the Petitioner has not only made out a case for admission but also for grant of interim relief.
As far as interim relief is concerned, that in similar matters (including one before the Nagpur Bench of this Court), this Court has directed the Respondents not to take coercive action against the Petitioner. Here also, since one of the issues is whether the Notifications dated 28th December 2023 and 16th January 2024 are valid or otherwise, and whether the impugned order could have been passed [especially if the said Notifications are set aside], there is a strong prima facie case is made out for granting interim relief to the Petitioner.
Conclusion - The show cause notice was never properly served on the Petitioner and the impugned order has been passed without giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner. Hence, there is a clear breach of principle of natural justice which itself makes the impugned order vulnerable to challenge.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1521
Challenge to order passed under section 73 of the GST Act as well as the order dated 02.12.2024 whereby the appeal was decided without giving any opportunity of hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Finding both the orders to non-compliance of mandatory requirement of under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, as such, both orders dated 27.12.2023 and 02.12.2024 are quashed. The matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1520
Violation of principles of natural justice - no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to passing of the order under section 73 of the Act - dismissal of appeal on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- The said cannot be termed as compliance of the mandatory requirement under section 75(4) of the GST Act. This issue is also covered by the judgment of this court in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr. [2024 (3) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of fundamental principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
The matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1519
Violation of principles of natural justice - no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to passing of the order under section 73 of the Act - dismissal of appeal on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- The said issue with regard to grant of personal hearing was dealt with in Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax [2022 (3) TMI 492 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that the impugned order dated 9.11.2021 could not be sustained due to the lack of a proper opportunity of personal hearing.
The matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1518
Seeking clarification from the Chief Secretary of the State of Goa, taking note of the conundrum as to whether the refund should come from the Department of Customs or the State Tax Department - HELD THAT:- The desired clarification dated 15.04.2025 under the signature of the Chief Secretary received, where it is categorically stated by him that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Panaji Ward is the Refund Sanctioning Authority (RSA) in respect of all registered taxable persons under the jurisdiction of Panaji Ward. The Chief Secretary has also set out the procedure to be followed by referring to the circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.
The prompt action on the part of the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa is appreciated as now clarity can be accorded to the grievance of the Petitioner.
The Application filed online today in terms of the procedure that has been set out in the circular dated 18.11.2019 issued by the Government of India, we expect the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax i.e. Respondent No. 1 to decide the said Application within a period of eight weeks from today - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1517
Initiation of proceedings and issuenace of SCN against a deceased person - Liability of legal representative u/s 93 - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the facts that the show cause notice and order both were uploaded on the portal and the same, was accordingly, not known to the legal heirs of the proprietor of the firm. The wife of Mr. Surendra Kumar has also expired and the writ petitioner, who is the son of Mr. Surendra Kumar, has filed this writ petition challenging the show cause notice and order on the ground that the same were passed against a person who was deceased. Furthermore, since information had been provided to the authorities with regard to death of the deceased person, the very initiation of the show cause notice was bad in law.
It is inherent that proceedings cannot be initiated against a person who is deceased. Thus, proceedings cannot be initiated against the legal heirs of the deceased or against the estate of the deceased. However, it was open to the authorities to proceed in proper manner against the legal representative/heirs of the deceased proprietor and having failed to do so, the entire proceedings initiated from the stage of show cause notice is bad in law.
Conclusion - The proceedings cannot be initiated against a person who is deceased. Also, proceedings cannot be initiated against the legal heirs of the deceased or against the estate of the deceased.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1516
Cancellation of Petitioner’s Goods and Service Tax registration retrospectively with effect from 01st July, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the nature of the matter and the reason for belated filing of returns for a few months, the retrospective cancellation would be too harsh a measure.
This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cancelling the GST registration of the Petitioner retrospectively deserves to be set side.
The retrospective cancellation of the GST registration of the Petitioner is set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1515
Belated filing of returns under Section 39 of of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 and the consequential effect of Section 16(4) of the said Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in this case, it may be seen that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 16(4) of the said Act and the petitioner having filed the returns in form GSTR-3B beyond the due date as provided in Section 16(4) of the said Act, not only the input tax credit availed by the petitioner was reversed but the petitioner was also saddled with interest under Section 50 of the said Act.
Admittedly, in this case, the returns having been filed within such extended dates, by operation of law the mischief of Section 16(4) cannot apply and accordingly, the aforesaid order dated 28th June, 2024 can no longer be enforced and the same is accordingly set aside and quashed.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1514
Cancellation of registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect - previous orders whereby the amendment applications were allowed, not taken note of by proper officer - Violaton of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice dated 16th June 2020 that the same has been issued on the ground that the registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Unfortunately, despite the respondents from time to time allowing the amendment applications as noted above, have purported to cancel the registration of the petitioner by a cryptic order dated 17th May 2024. No reasons whatsoever had been assigned.
The order impugned does not reflect the fact that the proper officer had taken note of its previous orders whereby the amendment applications were allowed.
Having regard thereto, the order dated 17th May 2024 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the proper officer - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1513
Seizure of goods in transit - seizure on the ground that the goods were transported via a route different from the one disclosed in the accompanying documents - HELD THAT:- It is admitted that the goods were in transit from Meerut to Kanpur, but the same were intercepted at Basti on the ground that the goods in question are being transported on a different place than disclosed in the accompanying documents. No other discrepancy whatsoever has been pointed by the authorities at any stage of the proceedings below. Neither any finding has been recorded that the goods in question are different than mentioned in the accompanying documents. Once the authorities have failed to record any finding regarding intention of evasion of tax on the part of the petitioner and therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner.
Further, the record shows that there is no such provision under the GST Act which empower the authorities to seize the goods if the goods in transit were on a different route. Under the GST Act, no provision has been made for declaration of the route during the transition of the goods. In absence of any such declaration, the goods ought not to have seized.
The record further reveals that at the time of detention of the goods, the goods in question were in transit along with all the proper documents wherein no discrepancy whatsoever was found by the authorities and therefore, once the documents accompanied with the goods in question were found to be genuine in terms of quality and quantity, the same ought to not have been seized by the authorities.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1512
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Demands due to excess availment of Input Tax Credit - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order would show that there is a detailed discussion as to the nature of services which the Petitioner has provided and the reasons as to why the department is of the opinion that the higher rate of tax would be applicable.
The question as to whether there was fraud and wilful-misstatement of fact on behalf of the Petitioner or not would require an analysis of the facts and various returns which were filed by the Petitioner, which cannot not be done in a writ petition - In fact the impugned order is clearly an appealable order under Section 107 of the CGST Act and the Appellant ought to be relegated to the appropriate appellate remedy so that all the issues which have been raised today can be raised before the Appellate Authority.
The Court is of the opinion that the nature of the matter and the records that would be required to be perused in a challenge to the impugned order, would not be the scope in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The Petitioner is accordingly relegated to the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1511
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-communication and denial of opportunity to the Petitioner - Condonation of delay in filing an appeal - Cancellation of GST registration - HELD THAT:- Under Section 107 of the Act, the limitation prescribed for challenging an order is three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to the concerned persons.
In the present case, however, a substantial demand has been raised against the Petitioner and for whatever reason, the Petitioner has not had an opportunity to either file a reply or to attend a personal hearing. The Petitioner ought to have been a little more cautious with the proceedings. In fact, the address of the Petitioner which is mentioned in the memo of parties is also the old place in Delhi. However, ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has now shifted to Noida.
Since the grounds for seeking permission to file the appeal against the order was that the Petitioner did not have knowledge of the SCN and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is of the opinion that an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to assail the order on merits - Accordingly, let the Petitioner file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act within a period of 30 days.
Petiton disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1510
Waiver of pre-deposit - whether the requirements mandated in terms of Section 107 (6) of the Act for pre-deposit can be waived or not? - HELD THAT:- In terms of the provisionof Section 107, insofar as the admitted tax, interest or penalty is concerned, the entire amount would have to be deposited. In so far as the disputed amount is concerned, 10% of the tax would have to be deposited as a pre-deposit along with the appeal. The said provision does not, in the opinion of this Court, give discretion for waiver of the pre-deposit.
In any event in Diamond Entertainment [2019 (9) TMI 1104 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in the context of the Excise Act, the Court has clearly observed that the petitioner must comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement to prosecute its appeal before the CESTAT.
In view of the settled legal position, the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit cannot be entertained. However, if there is any amount lying with the Government entities which the Petitioner wishes to rely upon as being part of the pre-deposit, the Petitioner is free to make such a prayer before the concerned Appellate Authority. It is also submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that Rs. 20 lakhs is also lying with the Department out of a total of Rs. 64 lakhs which is to be deposited by the Petitioner. This submission may also be made before the concerned Appellate Authority.
The Petitioner is accordingly relegated to the Appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act. All contentions are left open. The petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1509
Challenge to assessment order - order of assessment for the year 2022-2023 was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, remands the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to review the petitioner's case, taking into account the concerns raised regarding the TDS credit mismatch and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1508
Impermissible multiple or triple taxation - third demand for the same taxable period - Violation of principles of natural justice - Demand of GST by state authorities while demand was already raised by Central GSt authorities - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of the overlapping demand for the same period, as well as the failure to provide the petitioner with adequate notice of the order, which was issued ex-parte through the GSTN portal. Furthermore, the issue of triple taxation raised by the petitioner requires further examination.
This Court concludes that the principles of natural justice were not fully adhered to and as such, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration, including a detailed examination of the issues raised by the petitioner, such as the overlap in demand, the method of communication and the triple taxation issue.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
........
|
9911796707
