|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 734
Prayer for withdrawal of petition - petitioner submits that as the Department of Goods and Services Tax has introduced a scheme/circular for waiver of interest, penalty, or both, therefore for availing benefit of the same petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the instant Writ Petition and to file appropriate application before the Department - HELD THAT:- The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2025 (6) TMI 733
Seeking to appeal to the Tribunal, which is not yet constituted - HELD THAT:- The submission made on behalf of petitioner regarding corresponding notification reducing requirement of the deposit to 10% of disputed tax for impugned first appellate order to remain stayed, accepted. The deposit be made accordingly.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 732
Direction to accept all taxes in the light of Circular No. 238/32/2024 GST vide dated 15th October, 2024 - direction to accept all dues of taxes along with interest/penalty/charges if any, as per the demand for taxes as per the demand notice - petitioner was served with a demand notice as admittedly, petitioner failed to deposit the taxes during the Covid-19 period - HELD THAT:- The stand of the Department as disclosed in paragraph ‘14’ of the counter affidavit has not been contested by filing any rejoinder to the said counter affidavit, therefore, this Court finds that the issues involved in the writ application would be set at rest by simply observing that the petitioner, if willing to discharge its liability is free to deposit the amount with the Department in accordance with law and if the deposits are offered by the petitioner, the Department shall accept the same towards the discharge of the liability of the petitioner.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 670
Seeking grant of interim bail - it was held by High Court that 'Concededly, the applicants have not surrendered till date, and their applications seeking regular bail were dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 24th March, 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.' - HELD THAT:- Issue notice, returnable on 04.09.2025.
Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Let steps for service be taken within two weeks.
-
2025 (6) TMI 669
Violation of principles of natural justice - Challenge to summary of show cause notice - SCN issued without passing any order under Section 73(1) of the AGST Act, 2017 - opportunity of hearing was not provided - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is having similar issue, the determination made in said Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd [2024 (10) TMI 279 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT], shall cover the present case, where it was held that 'The issuance of the Summary of the Show Cause Notice, Summary of the Statement and Summary of the Order do not dispense with the requirement of issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and Statement as well as Page passing of the Order as per the mandate of Section 73 by the Proper Officer. As initiation of a proceedings under Section 73 and passing of an order under the same provision have consequences. The Show Cause Notice, Statement as well as the Order are all required to be authenticated in the manner stipulated in Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017.'
The issue raised in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd. and the present petition is similar and therefore, the determination made in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd, shall accordingly cover the present petition and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition stands disposed of by setting aside the summary of order dated 27.02.2025 and the summary of show cause notice dated 26.11.2024 in terms of the determination and conclusion arrived at para 29 of Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd.
Conclusion - The period from issuance of Summary to service of certified copy of judgment is excluded for limitation computation under Section 73(10).
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 668
Violation of principles of natural justice - order passed without issuing any SCN u/s 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - without giving any opportunity of hearing, the summary of order has been passed - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is having similar issue, the determination made in said Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (10) TMI 279 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT], shall cover the present case, where it was held that 'This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that it is on account of certain technicalities and the manner in which the impugned orders were passed, this Court interfered with the impugned orders and hence set aside and quashed the same. It is also relevant to take note of that the respondent authorities were under the impression that issuance of attachment of the determination of tax which was attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice would constitute a valid Show Cause Notice.'
The issue raised in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd and the present petition is similar and therefore, the determination made in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd, shall accordingly cover the present petition and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition stands disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 and the summary of show cause notice dated 28.11.2024 in terms of the determination and conclusion arrived at para 29 of Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 667
Challenge to SCN and demand order - vires of N/N. 09/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 - submission of the Petitioner is that the SCN from which the impugned order arises, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ therefore, the same did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner - Violation of principle sof natural justice - 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 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, the impugned SCN in the present case was issued on 26th September, 2023. Therefore, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the impugned 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 666
Challenge to ex-parte order by which a demand of Rs. 33,68,140/- has been raised on various accounts - SCN from which the impugned order arises, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’, therefore, the same did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner - impugned order has been 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:- The Court has also perused the records. It is noticed that the impugned order also records that no reply was filed and the personal hearing was not availed either. Thus, considering the reminder being issued, this Court is of the opinion that it was only after sufficient opportunities were provided, that the Adjudicating Authority has proceeded to pass the impugned order ex-parte. Therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under the writ jurisdiction.
Considering the fact that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, this Court is inclined to allow the Petitioner prefer an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority by 15th July, 2025. If the appeal is preferred within the stipulated period along with the prescribed pre-deposit, the concerned Appellate Authority shall not dismiss the appeal on limitation and shall hear it on merits.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 665
Challenge to the adjudication order - seeking for declaration to declare Section 168A of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 - wrong availment of input tax credit on account of contravention of provision of sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the Act - HELD THAT:- The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued Notification No.22/2024 – Central Tax dated 8th October, 2024, by which a special procedure for rectification of order, to be followed by the class of registered persons against whom any order under Section 73 or Section 74 or Section 107 or Section 108 of the Act has been issued confirming the demand for wrong availment of input tax credit on account of contravention of provision of sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the Act. The procedure has also been stipulated.
Similar view was taken by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Singh Construction Company Vs. State of Jharkhand [2024 (9) TMI 1230 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT]. The only factual difference in the case on hand is that the show-cause notice has ripened into an adjudication order. However, taking note of the fact that the statute has been amended by insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 16, we are of the view that the show-cause notice should re-adjudicated.
The order of adjudication is set aside and the show-cause is restored to the file of the adjudicating authority to be re-adjudicated taking into consideration sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act, which has been made effective with effect from 1st July, 2017 - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 664
Challenge to order passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - proper officer without affording the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing, has decided on the show-cause - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Noting the mandate of Section 75(4) of the said Act which obliges the proper officer to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner since the show-cause contemplates passing an adverse order and such provision having not been complied with, the aforesaid order dated 25th June, 2024 passed under Section 74 of the said Act for the tax period of April 2018 to March, 2021 cannot be sustained.
The matter is remanded back to the proper officer for adjudication afresh. The proper officer is directed to here out the show-cause by giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the show-cause, an opportunity of hearing, and to decide the matter within a period of 16 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 663
Challenge to N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and 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 - 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 vide ‘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.'
It is relevant to note that post 16th January 2024, the Department has effected changes in the portal to ensure that the SCNs become visible to parties. However the impugned SCN in the present petition has been issued on 06th December, 2023. Therefore, considering the fact that the Petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity to file a reply and attend a personal hearing, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is relegated to the concerned Adjudicating Authority to be heard on merits.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 662
Validity of the impugned order - detention of goods alongwith vehicle - Under valuation of the goods - Possession of an e-way bill raised without any corresponding movement of goods - HELD THAT:- Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 is a penal provision. It provides for detention of goods and conveyances. In construing penal statues, the Courts have to apply strict rules of interpretation. A reading of the aforesaid provision leads me to the conclusion that the provision will kick in only when there is transportation of goods in contravention of the statutory provisions. It is a sine qua non. Only in that event, the goods and conveyance used as a means of transport as well as the related documents shall be liable to detention or seizure. In the case on hand, the vehicle has been detained only for the reason that the driver was in possession of a document without there being any corresponding movement of goods. When even according to the respondents, there was no movement of goods, Section 129(1) of the Act cannot be invoked for detaining the vehicle.
The primary ingredient necessary to attract the statutory provision is absent in this case. There has been no seizure of goods. What was seized was only an e-way bill, whose contents have given rise to a genuine doubt if some fraud had been committed. On the strength of a mere recovery of an e-way bill, which appears to have been raised without any movement of the goods from the driver of the vehicle, the vehicle could not have been impounded.
Conclusion - The very detention of the vehicle is without jurisdiction. The respondents shall forthwith release the petition mentioned vehicle.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 661
Grant of interim bail - HELD THAT:- Concededly, the applicants have not surrendered till date, and their applications seeking regular bail were dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 24th March, 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
As the applicants are not in custody, therefore, their prayer for regular bail cannot be considered - The applications are dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 660
Search and seizure - issuance of authorization in Form INS-01 and seizure list in Form INS-02 - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, it would transpire that the seizure and search proceeding was conducted sometime in July 2024 and the petitioner did not approached this Court immediately thereafter. After more than 8 months, the petitioner has approached this court. The e-mail seeking copy of the INS-1 and INS-2 have also been issued after more than 8 months from the date of search and seizure operations. At this stage, only a notice in DRC 1A has only been issued. No show cause has yet been issued on the petitioner. At present, the petitioner claims to be a registered taxpayer.
At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to any interim order. The matter is made returnable in the Monthly List of June 2025.
The petitioner is given opportunity to apply, if occasion arises. Any steps taken by the respondents shall abide by the result of the writ petition.
-
2025 (6) TMI 659
Initiation of proceedings in which the show cause notice has been issued and the impugned order has been passed by the State - Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 as well as MGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the case of this very Petitioner, for an earlier period, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3541 of 2024. In that Writ Petition, this Court has issued Rule and granted interim relief.
In these circumstances, in this Petition also, Rule issued. Respondents waive service - List the above Petition a/w Writ Petition No. 3541 of 2024 a/w other connected matters on 21st April, 2024.
-
2025 (6) TMI 658
Cancellation of the registration of the petitioner on the premise that the statutory returns has not been filed for a continuous period of six months - invocation of Section 29(2) of CGST Act - it is submitted by petitioner that the returns have been filed and the appropriate taxes have also been paid and the petitioner is ready to pay any further taxes that may be due, along with late fee and interest, as required under GST Act - 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 are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid.'
The benefit extended by this Court vide its earlier order in Suguna Cutpiece Center's case, may be extended to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 586
Input tax credit - denial on the ground that supplier GST registration has been cancelled with retrospective effect - HELD THAT:- Before taking any action in the matter, considering the genuineness of the transaction, the same could have been determined only after examining all the relevant documents, which does not appear to have been done in the instant case.
The present petition is allowed on this ground alone and the impugned orders dated 10.01.2025 and 31.03.2024 issued by respondents No.3 and 4 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority, who shall decide the matter after examining all the relevant documents. The parties to appear before the said authority on 20.06.2025.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 585
Levy of taxes - petitioner had failed to respond to the SCN and accordingly, an order of attachment was also passed on the same date - impugned order was passed based on a presumption that as the Assesee has not filed reply, therefore, it is deemed to be an agreement with the SCN - HELD THAT:- The material on record leaves no room of doubt in the mind of the Court that though the petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice through online mode on 20.12.2023 under acknowledgment No. ARN ZD18 1223033093T and that, even after receipt of such reply, the impugned decision was passed based in the premises that the petitioner did not reply to such show cause notice and that assesee agreed to the allegation made in the show cause. Therefore, the stand of the respondent in the affidavit, to the effect that they have considered the reply of the petitioner to the show cause, is not sustainable inasmuch as the respondents by way of filing affidavit cannot change their position from the reason recorded in the impugned order dated 29.12.2023.
Accordingly, in the given facts of the present case, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 and subsequent attachment order dated 29.12.2023 are set aside and quashed and the matter is relegated to the competent authority i.e. the respondent No. 3 to take a decision afresh on the basis of the reply to the show cause notice dated 20.12.2023 and as per procedure prescribed under the Act, in question.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 584
Seeking grant of Regular bail - offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(a) or (b) or (c) or (d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with offence registered by the respondent No.2 subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 583
Constitutional validity of Section 16 (2) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 - violative of Article 14 (19) (i) of the Constitution of India - reading down the phraseology “has been actually paid” occurring in Section 16 (2) of the CGST/SGST Act to “ought to have been paid” - HELD THAT:- Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is questioning the orders passed under the provisions of Section 73 (9) and he would fall within the category of Section 73 (10) whereby the time period prescribed is 3 years from the date of furnishing the annual returns for financial year to which the tax is not paid or short paid or input tax credit is wrongly availed. Therefore since within 3 years no proceedings are initiated against him, the proceedings and orders passed by the 1st respondent is bad in law, illegal and the same requires to be set aside. However on careful perusal of the provisions of Section 107 of the KGST Act which prescribes that on any decision or order passed and a person aggrieved by it under the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act by any adjudicating authority may appeal to such appellate authority as may be prescribed within 3 months on the date on which such decision or order is communicated to such person.
There are no good reason to go into the merits of the matter - petition dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
