|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 910
Levy of GST on interest receivable on deferred payment in Equated Yearly Installment as per tender terms under Annuity Model - classification of service - applicable rate of GST payable - HELD THAT:- Considering the section 15 of MGST Act, the value of supply shall include interest or late fee or penalty for delay payment of any consideration for any supply.
A CBIC has issued a Circular No. 221/15/2024-GST, dated 26-06-202 regarding clarification on time of supply in respect of supply of services of construction of road and maintenance thereof of National Highway Projects of National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in Hybrid Annuity Mode (HAM) model and clarification says that 'It is also clarified that as the installments/annuity payable by NHAI to the concessionaire also includes some interest component, the amount of such interest shall also be includible in the taxable value for the purpose of payment of tax on the said annuity/installment in view of the provisions of section 15 (2) (d) of the CGST Act.'
Thus, the amount of such interest shall also be includible in the taxable value for the purpose of payment of tax on the said annuity / installment in view of the provisions of section 15 (2) (d) of the CGST Act and Classification of service and applicable rate of GST payable on the interest receivable on deferred payment in Equated Yearly Instalment shall be the same as that of the original taxable supply of “services of construction of road and maintenance”.
Conclusion - i) Interest receivable on deferred payment in Equated Yearly Installment as per tender terms under Annuity Model is liable for payment of GST. ii) Service is classified same as that of the original taxable supply of “services of construction of road and maintenance “and applicable rate of GST shall be the same as that of original taxable supply.
-
2025 (6) TMI 834
Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC), lying in Electronic Credit Ledger - whether the refund of ITC under Section 49(6) of the CGST Act is only limited to companies carved out under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act or does every registered company have a right to refund of ITC in case of discontinuance of business? - HELD THAT:- As can be seen in Slovak India Trading Company Private Limited [2006 (7) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] the company had applied for refund for unutilized input credit which was available, at the time of closure of unit. The Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the refund stating inter alia that it cannot be rejected on closure of the company. The High Court agreed and opined that there is no express prohibition in Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.
The impugned Order is set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 833
Challenge to order passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST / CGST Act, 2017 - petitioner submits that the appellate authority had decided the matter ex parte without providing further opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to present his case, especially since he is a 73 year old person - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in this case it would transpire that the petitioner was afforded with repeated opportunities of personal hearing. The petitioner did not avail the same.
Revenue would however, contend that the petitioner being an aged person and dependent upon tax consultant, had no fault in not availing the benefit of personal appearance since, the tax consultant who was entrusted with the duty to represent him did not appear.
Although, the aforesaid ground does not appear to be justified, however, taking into consideration the fact that the order impugned is an unreasoned order and does not comply with the provisions of Section 107 (12) of the said Act and since there appears to be no reasons for rejecting the appeal on merit, the aforesaid order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. Accordingly, while setting aside the order dated 31st December 2024 passed by the appellate authority, the matter remanded back to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication on merit.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (6) TMI 832
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner for not furnishing returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) or more months - procedural requirements under Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, specifically the issuance of a show cause notice and opportunity for reply, were complied with before cancellation or not - HELD THAT:- 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.
Conclusion - 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 his 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 831
Cancellation of GST registration on the premise that the statutory returns has not been filed for a continuous period of more than six months - HELD THAT:- This Court has been consistently following the directions issued in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center's case [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to revive their GST registrations to ensure compliance with the GST regime and avoid revenue loss to the government.
In view thereof, the benefit extended by this Court in Suguna Cutpiece Centre's case, may be extended to the petitioner.
The petition is disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 830
Challenge to notice of intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge would reveal that original order passed on 29.07.2021 and appellate order passed on 14.02.2023 were quashed and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order by taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner. The show cause notice was not quashed by the Court and, therefore, apparently, there was no necessity to issue the fresh intimation under Section 74(5) of the Act.
A perusal of the provision of Section 75(3) of the Act, reveals that any order which is required to be issued pursuant to the remand, the same shall be issued within a period of two years from the date of communication of the said order.
Conclusion - i) It cannot be said that the proceedings pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge cannot be continued beyond a period of three months. ii) The challenge laid by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 74(5) of the Act and questioning the continuance of proceedings pursuant to the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 06.02.2024 has no substance.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 829
Cancellation of client’s registration under Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - petitioner is ready and willing to pay the tax, interest, late fee, penalty and any other sum required to be paid - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M/S. MOHANTY ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER, CT & GST, ODISHA, CUTTACK AND OTHERS [2022 (11) TMI 1521 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc., due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.'
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 747
Dismissal of appeal on the ground that the same was barred by limitation - seeking inter alia a direction to the respondents to restore his registration cancelled - HELD THAT:- This petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for registration of his GST number within a period of seven days from today. The Competent Authority shall restore GST number of the petitioner immediately, subject to the completion of all requisite formalities. The petitioner shall file the returns and deposit the taxes and penalty along with interest within a period of seven days. In the event the needful is not done by the petitioner within stipulated period, this order shall cease to be in operation.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 746
Challenge to parallel proceedings initiated by the Central Goods and Service Tax Commissioner alongwith the State Taxes and Excise-cum-Proper Officer - unsealing of premises of the petitioner - unblocking of credit which has been illegally blocked - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that it was the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, who initiated the proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 prior in point of time and it is out of sheer ignorance of such proceedings that the Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise-cum- Proper Officer also proceeded by not only carrying out the raid in the premises of the petitioner’s unit, but also sealing the same. The petitioner cannot be made to face two parallel proceedings for the same cause, that too of the same year.
Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to direct that henceforth it would only be the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, who would have the jurisdiction and who alone would have the authority to deal with the petitioner under Section 70 of the Act to take these proceedings to logical end. However, at the same time, the State is also permitted to assist the said authority, but would not initiate any independent proceedings.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 745
Cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 - non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months - opportunity of personal hearing provided or not - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- 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 his 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 744
Challenge to adjudication order - scope of SCN - original SCN addressed only an IGST demand with interest and penalty, with no CGST or SGST demands proposed - after limitation period expired, a subsequent notice increased the IGST demand and introduced CGST and SGST demands - HELD THAT:- The matter requires consideration.
Learned counsel for the respondents are granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter - List immediately thereafter.
-
2025 (6) TMI 743
Violation of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - passing an order of assessment without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the order impugned, results in civil consequences, and any proceedings, which results in civil consequences to the petitioner, are required to be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing. In the case of CGST Act, the Act itself, and in particular sub-section (4) of Section 75, mandates that an opportunity of personal hearing ought to be given to the parties concerned, more so when the authorities contemplate an order adverse to the interest of the assessee.
The Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the settled position in law that no order, affecting civil rights of a citizen, can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, and also failed to appreciate the fact that the mandate, and the scheme of the Act itself, has been violated by the concerned authorities.
The order impugned is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for re-consideration in accordance with law - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 742
Availment of excess input tax credit - jurisdictional fact not considered by the adjudicating authority - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is no ambiguous that the Order-in-Original was passed on 20.02.2025 and the reply to show-cause notice was filed online on 20.12.2024. Thus, it is obvious that on the date of passing the adjudication order the reply/explanation to show-cause notice along with other documents attached to the same as stated to have been uploaded on 20.12.2024 was before the adjudicating authority for examination of veracity of claim of input tax credit. It is, therefore, manifest that the adjudicating authority has ignored to consider the objections and explanation proffered in response to show-cause.
This Court is of ex facie view that there was glaring non-adherence of principles of natural justice as the Order-in-Original dated 20.02.2025 under Annexure-7 reveals error apparent on the face of the record, which fact could be discerned from narration of the adjudicating authority vide Paragraph-4 of the said Order-in-Original.
This Court is persuaded to believe that the proper authority has failed to consider the reply to show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-06 (Annexure-6 Series) along with other documents uploaded. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation to set aside the Order-in- Original dated 20.02.2025 vide Annexure-7 as also Summary Order dated 24.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act by the Additional Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Commissionerate, Rourkela-Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure-8 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and remit the matter to the said authority concerned for fresh adjudication.
Conclusion - i) The adjudicating authority under the GST Act must consider all replies and supporting documents filed by the petitioner before passing an order. ii) Failure to consider such submissions constitutes violation of the principles of natural justice and renders the order liable to be set aside.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 741
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal - petitioner was not aware of the said notices - petitioner is willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.
No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
The impugned order dated 06.02.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 740
Seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay the balance outstanding in the bills submitted by the petitioner and to declare that, the respondent University is liable to pay the applicable goods and service tax for the Goods and Services availed by them as per the invoices issued by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The learned Single Judge, had relying on clause 11 (f) of the General Conditions of Tender, which specifically stipulated that all rates quoted should be inclusive of sales tax, concluded that after the introduction of the GST regime, the term ‘sales tax’ had to be understood as Goods and Service Tax and thus, the tender document is to be deemed as having provided for inclusion of GST. The learned Judge had noted that the payment towards the second and final part had been accepted by the petitioner without the GST. It was also rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge that any doubt regarding the inclusion of GST or otherwise ought to have been cleared by the petitioner before participating in the bid and instead of doing so, the petitioner had participated in the tender and had thereafter chosen to challenge the terms of the tender document after securing the contract and executing the work.
The learned Judge, holding that after participating in a tender process, the bidder cannot turn around and challenge the conditions in the bid document, has dismissed the W.P.(C). It is trite and settled law, as held in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others [2000 (5) TMI 1081 - SUPREME COURT], that a term of the tender being varied after the players entered the arena is akin to changing the rules of the game after it had begun.
The learned Single Judge was correct in turning down the said prayer. As regards the contentions made based on Annexure A circular produced along with the appeal, there are merit in the contention of the respondent that given the clear and precise conditions of tender document, which was never objected to or sought to be varied at the appropriate time, there is no scope for the reliance placed on the circular, that too belatedly.
Conclusion - i) Tender conditions, once accepted and acted upon, are binding and cannot be unilaterally varied by a bidder post-contract execution. ii) Claims for additional payments such as GST, when the tender expressly requires bids inclusive of taxes, cannot be entertained after the fact. iii) Writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for resolving disputed factual and contractual issues.
There are no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge - appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 739
Challenge to SCN and consequent order - vires of N/N. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 as also the N/N. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 - impugned order passed without providing the Petitioner a personal hearing and in the absence of a reply on behalf of the Petitioner - 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 vide ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter.
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 4th December 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 - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 738
Challenge to SCN - validity and vires of N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 and related notifications issued u/s 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - extension of time limits for adjudication of SCN and passing of orders u/s 73 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- In fact, 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 where it was held 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.'
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 29th 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.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 737
Seeking Cancellation of Detention and subsequent confiscation of goods under Section 129(3) of the UP GST/CGST Act, 2017 - evasion of tax - e-way bill generated prior to passing of the detention order - technical glitch - violation of circular dated 9.5.2018 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, at the time of detention, the goods in question was 4 MPD machines (Petrol and Diesel delivery machines) and same were to be used for installation at the petrol pump of BPCL at Atarra, district Banda. A certificate has been brought on record showing that the said goods were not for trade, therefore, price of the same cannot be determined.
Further none of the authorities have disputed the fact that goods in question were stock transfer, in other words, the goods were coming from BPCL Kanpur for installation at the petrol pump of BPCL at Atarra, Distt. Banda.
The goods in question were seized on the ground that e-way bill and delivery challan were not accompanying the goods at the time of interception but the same was generated and produced before passing the order of detention.
Further none of the authorities below have recorded any finding with regard to evasion of tax.
The issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of M/s Vacment India Limited [2023 (10) TMI 863 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and M/s Goverdhan Oil Mill [2024 (4) TMI 1271 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT].
Thus, the impugned orders dated 10.7.2023 and 29.1.2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 736
Challenge to SCN and consequent order - vires of N/N. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 as also the N/N. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 - impugned order passed without providing the Petitioner a personal hearing and in the absence of a reply on behalf of the Petitioner - 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 vide ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter.
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 writ petition was filed in the year 2025, raising issues as to the validity of the impugned notifications. 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 - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 735
Recovery proceedings - IGST paid via TR 6 Challan (Treasury Receipt), not recognized by the respondents - grievance of the petitioner is that this document has not been recognized by the respondents and that has led to the passing of the impugned order - HELD THAT:- Since recovery proceedings are in the offing, an order interim stay is granted till the filing of the counter and for a further period of two weeks after filing of the counter by the respondents. It is for the petitioner to obtain extension of the interim order thereafter.
............
|
9911796707
