|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 582
Prayer for quashing and setting aside the search authorization issued by respondent No.5 - prayer for quashing and setting aside the attachment orders and blocking of ITC as passed by the respondents - summons and attachment orders issued by the State Tax authorities without mentioning a Document Identification Number (DIN) - delegation of power by the Commissioner to subordinate officers - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed by the petitioner on notification dated 05.07.2017 whereby the powers of the Commissioner are delegated to the Special Commissioner of State Tax and Additional Commissioner of State Tax for the purpose of said Act would not be applicable in the facts of the case when by order dated 15.01.2018 (page 106 of the petition), the Commissioner being a proper officer has assigned the function which is to be performed by him by the another proper officer and therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax is without jurisdiction but the impugned orders are passed by the Assistant Commissioner while exercising powers assigned to him as per the order dated 15.01.2018.
With regard to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner on merits, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not filed any application raising objections against the satisfaction recorded by the respondent-authorities while passing impugned orders of provisional attachment. In such circumstances, without entering into the merits of the matter, the petitioners are relegated to file appropriate application raising objections against the satisfaction recorded by the respondent authority for passing provisional attachment in the facts of the case and as and when such application if any is made by the petitioner before the respondent authority, the same shall be considered by the respondent-authority expeditiously and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt thereof.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 581
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - service of consolidated notice - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for respondent No.3 seeks time to make a search contrary to the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the arguments advanced by him.
To follow the natural justice, an opportunity must be given to the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 to comment on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the issue of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 14.02.2025.
-
2025 (6) TMI 580
Challenge to impugned order on the premise that the same is made in violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.
The petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed taxes as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - The impugned order dated 29.08.2024 is set aside.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 579
Applicability of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on various works undertaken by a State Electricity Transmission Utility for Dedicated Consumers.
Supply or not - Shifting/height raising of transmission towers/lines belonging to the applicant through a contractor on request of Dedicated Consumers - HELD THAT:- The said services are neither services of transmission of electricity or any service incidental or ancillary to the said service. In fact, this service is not even provided to the actual consumers or users of the electricity. It is a service of shifting of transmission lines so that there is no hindrance for the various persons such as National Highway Authority, Railways etc., in widening of roads, giving right of way etc. For the said shifting of the transmission lines which come in the way of their work, these customers approach the applicant requesting them to shift the transmission towers or raise the height of the transmission lines or towers for which they offer compensation which includes the cost of the said work along with 15% Supervisory Charges. Since these services are not covered under S.No.25 and S.No. 25A of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017, the said services are taxable services. The said services are in the nature of agreeing to do an act for a consideration. As per Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST dated 3.8.2022, agreeing to do an act is nothing but a contractual agreement. In the said agreement there are two parties and where one party agrees to do something and the other party agrees to pay consideration to the first party for doing the said thing. In the instant case, the applicant is agreeing to shift the transmission towers/ raise the height of the transmission lines/towers and for this purpose, consideration is paid by the customer - the said services provide by the applicant would be aptly Hovered under the service of agreeing to do an act for a consideration and therefore such services would be classifiable under 999792.
What shall be the time of supply? - HELD THAT:- Since no specific contract details are available, it is found that in general, the time of supply shall be the time prescribed under Section 13 of the CGST Act, 2017.
What shall be the HSN/SAC Code and rate of GST for such “supplies”? - HELD THAT:- The service would be covered under the services of agreeing to do an act for a consideration and would be classifiable under Heading 999792 and chargeable to 18% GST.
Whether ITC on the running bills received from the contractor can be claimed by MSETCL? If ITC can be claimed by MSETCL, then whether ITC can be claimed in the period in which the running bill is received or on the receipt of the final invoice/completion of entire work? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, for a generic question, it is not possible to decide whether any structure is a plant and machinery, without going into the facts and details in a particular case. Therefore, it is not possible to come to a conclusion whether in the generic situation mentioned by the applicant, the service provided by the sub-contractors to the applicant for construction of an immovable property, can be covered under the definition of plant or machinery. Under the circumstances, it would not be possible to give any decision as to whether the input tax credit would be available to the applicant. However, on the basis of general understanding, if the activity of construction is in respect of plant and machinery, input tax credit would be available. If the activity of construction is in respect of any immovable property, that does not satisfy the definition of plant and machinery laid down in the Explanation under Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017, no input tax credit would be available to the applicant. If input tax credit can be availed, it will be on the basis of the running bills raised by the sub-contractors.
What shall be the value of supply at a particular moment when consideration is received? - HELD THAT:- The dedicated users of the electricity, approach the applicant for supply of electricity and in order to provide uninterrupted and dedicated supply of electricity, the applicant proposes that EHV Substations/lines have to be constructed and for the said construction, a contract is entered into with the dedicated user, who provides for the cost of construction of the substation in addition to 15% Supervision charges to the applicant. The applicant, in turn, enters into contract with sub-contractors who do the actual construction of the EHV Sub Station/EHV Lines under the supervision of the applicant. After completion of the Construction, the EHV Sub Station/ EHV Line so created is capitalized in the books of the applicant as an asset.
The services provided by the applicant of setting up of infrastructure for transmission of electricity are more akin to managing the construction of infrastructure for provision of supply of electricity by providing skills of engineering, project management and supervision of the actual construction. Supply has been defined under the CGST Act under Section 7 as all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, license, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course of furtherance of business. In the instant case, the applicant is providing a service to the customer for a consideration in the course of furtherance of their business. Therefore the activity of managing a project of setting up a substation on behalf of the customer for providing dedicated and uninterrupted supply of electricity would be a supply in terms of the CGST Act, 2017.
Conclusion - i) Shifting/Height raising of Transmission Towers/Lines, belonging to MSETCL through a contractor on the request of the Dedicated Consumers such as railways, National Highway Authority of India etc. on receipt of payment of consideration in the form of adjustable deposit constitutes supply. ii) Time of Supply shall be the time prescribed under Section 13 of the CGST Act, 2017. iii) The service would be covered under the services of agreeing to do an act for a consideration and would be classifiable under Heading 999792 and chargeable to 18% GST. iv) Value of supply shall be the value determined under Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017. v) Construction of EHV Substations and EHV Lines for dedicated user of Dedicated Consumers by MSETCL through a contractor on the request of the end users on receipt of payment of consideration in the form of adjustable deposit constitutes supply.
-
2025 (6) TMI 578
Classification of services - ATS (exhaust after-treatment system) also known as EGP (exhaust gas processor), which is a purifying and filtering apparatus/ equipment - classifiable under tariff heading 84213990 or under tariff heading 8708 of the Indian Customs Tariff - applicability of Serial No. 322 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017.
HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the applicant is manufacturing and supplying exhaust after treatment system and other components for motor vehicles/automobiles having medium duty, heavy duty and high horsepower engines. Fitting an exhaust After Treatement System (ATS) is mandatory as per Bharat Stage VI standard for emission norms as prescribed by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. It is seen that the applicant supplies the following commodities to various original equipment manufacturers in the automobile industry for use in and during manufacture of motor vehicles.
An After Treatment System is an apparatus which is used for filtering or purifying gases. The Explanatory Notes to the HSN for Chapter 8421 states that these gas filters or purifiers are used to separate solid or liquid particles from gases either to recover product of value (eg. Coal dust, metallic particles, etc., recovered from furnace flue gases or to eliminate harmful materials (eg. Dust extraction, removal of tar etc., from gases or smoke fumes, remoal of oil from steam engine vapours) and they include other chemical filters or purifiers for air or other gases (including catalytic converters which change carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases of motor vehicles).
In order to classify the ATS supplied by the applicant to the OEM manufacturers as parts of motor vehicle under 8708, it has to pass the three-pronged tests as mentioned above. It is seen from the submissions and the documents presented before us that the goods manufactured and supplied by the applicant are as per the specific designs and drawings provided by the OEM manufacturers. They are so designed, that the said product fits perfectly with the exhaust system of the motor vehicles. The said products supplied bear the part numbers, provided by the vehicle manufacturers. Further, the said product has been so designed that they can fit within the overall design of the motor vehicle and function in an integrated manner with the motor vehicle for which it has been designed. Therefore, there are no hesitation in holding that the said goods have been designed and manufactured and are for use solely or principally with the articles of Chapter 87, in the instant case, motor vehicles. However, in order to sustain the classification under Chapter 87, the said goods should also pass the first test i.e. they should not be excluded by the Note 2 to Section XVII.
In the instant case, it can be seen that the ATS System supplied by the applicant would not be able to perform the function of removing the exhaust fumes, unless it is attached to the motor vehicle for which it is designed. It would not function as an apparatus or a machinery in any other case. Therefore, since it cannot function independently of the motor vehicle for which it was designed and cannot be termed as an apparatus or machine for any other purpose, it cannot be classified under Chapter 8421.
Conclusion - ATS, being tailor-made and incapable of functioning independently as a filtering apparatus without fitting to a specific motor vehicle, does not qualify as machinery under 8421 for classification purposes. ATS merits classification under tariff heading 8708 of the Indian Customs Tariff (as applicable to GST Law).
-
2025 (6) TMI 577
Levy of GST - area given free of cost to existing members under a redevelopment agreement - monetary considerations paid to existing members in terms of the development agreement - taxable value for levy of GST on the area given free of cost to existing members.
GST Liability on Area Given Free of Cost to Existing Members - HELD THAT:- In cases where flats are allotted to existing members of a society under a re-development arrangement, such allotment is not made in consideration of monetary payment. Instead, the consideration is in the form of development rights transferred by the society to the developer for the purpose of re-development. In accordance with above mentioned para 2A and Rule 27 (a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, where the consideration is not wholly in money, the value of such flats shall be deemed to be equal to the value of similar flats supplied by the builder or developer to independent buyers for monetary consideration - Such construction services rendered by the developer to the landowner or society members, in exchange for development rights, constitute a supply of service within the meaning of clause 5 (b) of Schedule II of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and are accordingly liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST).
Whether GST is payable on various monetary payments made to the society members? - HELD THAT:- As per Notification No. 06/2019-State Tax (Rate) dated 30th March 2019, GST liability payable, on development rights is to be paid by promoter (builder/developer) on the date of issuance of completion certificate for the project, where required, by the competent authority or on its first occupation, whichever is earlier.
A new tax structure for real estate sector was introduced with effect from 1- 4-2019 onwards by amendment of Notification No. 11/2017, Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 by Notification No. 03/2019-Central Tax (Rate), dated 29-3-2019. The Notification No. 03/2019-Central Tax (Rate), dated 29-3-2019 substituted the rate for services related to real estate sector with effect from 1-4-2019 and also made provisions for continuing the old rate of tax (as it existed up to 31-3-2019) for the ongoing projects. Notification No. 04/2019 -Central Tax (Rate), dated 29-3-2019 provided that the promoter shall be liable to pay tax at applicable on reverse charge basis.
The taxation of development rights after 01-04-2019 is governed by entry 41A of NN 12/2017 CT(R) dated 28/06/2017. The tax would be payable to the extent of unsold flats on the date of CC. It says promoter shall be liable to pay tax at the applicable rate, on reverse charge basis, on such proportion of value of development rights, or FSI attributable to the residential apartments, which remain un-booked on the date of issuance of completion certificate, or first occupation of the project, whichever is earlier. It is further provided that tax payable shall not exceed 1% of the value in case of affordable residential apartments and 5% of the value in case of residential apartments other than affordable residential apartments remaining un-booked on the date of issuance of completion certificate or first occupation. The liability to pay central tax on the said portion of the development rights or FSI, or both, calculated as above, shall arise on the date of completion or first occupation of the project, as the case may be, whichever is earlier.
Conclusion - i) GST is payable on the area given free of cost, amenities, parking, and stamp duty borne by the developer to existing members. ii) GST is not payable separately on monetary considerations paid to existing members or society, as these are part of the overall consideration for development rights. iii) The taxable value for GST on area given free of cost is the market value of similar flats sold to independent buyers nearest to the date of transfer of development rights or completion certificate.
-
2025 (6) TMI 524
Option to pay tax at the rate of 12 per cent (6 per cent CGST + 6 per cent MGST) with Input tax credit for supply of residential apartments in all its ten Aspirational towers in terms of item (ie) of Sl. No. of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time - HELD THAT:- The applicant initiated booking to these 3 towers, A, B and C from 15-01-2019. The applicant discharged GST @ 12% (net GST rate of 8% after considering land deduction) on the consideration received from prospective construction. Rate of 12% is applied as the project was to be an affordable housing project as per the criteria for the same prior to 01.04.2019. The applicant also availed input tax credit on the inward supplies of goods and services.
However, with effect from 01.04.2019, a new tax structure was introduced wherein the developers of residential projects had the option of paying GST at the rate of 1% (in case of affordable housing apartment) or 5% without Input tax credit. As regards all the projects which were incomplete as on March 31, 2019, the new structure gave one-time option to continue paying GST at the old rates with ITC subject to the fulfilment of specified conditions for all ongoing projects. However, the old tax structure as available upto March 31, 2019 was not available in respect of projects commencing with effect from April 1, 2019.
In terms of Entry 3(ie) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended by Notification No. 3/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019), the service of construction of an affordable residential apartment in an ongoing project would be subject to GST at the rate of 12% (net GST rate of 8% after considering land deduction) subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified therein. The term ongoing project has been defined under 4(xx) of NN 11/2017. It is therefore pertinent to determine whether all ten towers along with its commercial units and amenities constitute a single project for the purposes of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’) and the notifications given thereunder.
Conclusion - Applicant does not meet the criteria of ‘ongoing project’ as per the Notification No. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time, only in respect of projects A, B and C. Hence, tax rate prescribed for the item (ie) of Sl. No. 3 of the said Notification would be applicable only to the sale of apartments in towers A, B and C subject to the fulfillment of other conditions mentioned for the said item.
-
2025 (6) TMI 518
Violation of principles of natural justice - ex parte impugned summary order was passed - condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause present or not - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, the ex parte summary order came to be passed on 25.07.2023. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 04.09.2024, i.e., with a delay of 285 days. Since the delay was beyond the condonable period, the said appeal was rejected by the first respondent vide impugned order dated 04.11.2024. According to the petitioner, since the summary order was passed in ex parte, they remained unaware of the said order and hence, they were unable to file the appeal within time.
The above reason assigned by the petitioner, for the delay in filing the appeal against the summary order, appears to be genuine. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, in filing the appeal against the impugned summary order, on terms.
The impugned order dated 04.11.2024 is set aside and the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal against the summary order is hereby condoned, subject to the payment of additional 5% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the respondent-Department, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 517
Principles of promissory estoppel - Estoppel from denying the additional G.S.T demand - delay in handing over possession - Whether, after agreeing to a particular price and expressly mentioning it to be inclusive of G.S.T, the additional amount also claimed as G.S.T can be pursued by the Housing Board or not? - HELD THAT:- he petitioners have an alternative remedy under the RERA Act, which requires consideration of several factors to determine whether there was a delay and whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. Therefore, although the learned Senior Counsel for TNHB argues based on Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. Sipahi Singh and Ors. [1977 (9) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT], it is believed that since the project is registered under the RERA and a specific remedy is available for the petitioners under this Act, this contention is not addressed, while keeping open the liberty of both sides in that regard.
The facts in this case are not under dispute. The 100% cost required by TNHB, which was determined and directed to be paid for the petitioners by TNHB, has already been paid. According to the advertisement issued, it explicitly states that this amount is inclusive of G.S.T. Nothing contrary is mentioned in the allotment letter or the agreement entered into between the parties. It should be noted that TNHB is in a dominant position to draft the clauses of the said agreement, and, in fact, the prospective purchasers must sign the common format determined solely by TNHB.
Whether this case portrays an exceptional circumstance where, due to the genuine mistake of not noticing or considering a tax liability, TNHB should be permitted an additional amount of 5%? - HELD THAT:- TNHB only has to reconcile its accounts and properly pay the GST to the authorities, and it cannot involve the prospective purchaser who has already paid the entire amount in this exercise. It would be open for the TNHB to suitably calibrate the sale price and the GST within the amount that is paid by the petitioner, as they have specifically mentioned the same in their advertisement. This apart, for their default as per the GST Act, if TNHB has to pay any penalty or interest for the belated payment and non-issue of invoices, it must pursue the matter in the manner known to law in the Writ Petition that is said to be pending, and that has got nothing to do with the petitioners herein.
The rights of TNHB vis-à-vis the petitioners have nothing to do with the numerous contentions made by TNHB with reference to the claim made by GST authorities. In fact, even if any further benefit accrues to TNHB due to its litigation or claim with the G.S.T authorities, nothing further needs to be refunded to the petitioners herein. Therefore, for the petitioners who have already paid the full flat cost, TNHB is not entitled to claim any additional amount, and the sale deed must be executed. For the petitioners who have, without prejudice, also paid the additional 5%, the extra sum collected from them must be refunded. Accordingly, the necessary sale deeds shall be executed in favour of the petitioners.
Conclusion - i) In respect of the petitioners herein who have paid the 100% sale price as calculated according to the advertisement rate, TNHB, without insisting on any further payment of G.S.T, shall appropriately calculate the sale price and the G.S.T, and by mentioning the sale price, shall execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. ii) Regarding the petitioners who have, without prejudice, also made the additional payment, the aforementioned exercise shall be conducted in addition to refunding the extra 5% collected from them.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 516
Challenge to common SCN - Petitioner submits that the SCN was issued in respect of three financial years and hence the Petitioner would be compelled to file three different appeals qua the impugned order - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that since a common SCN was issued upon the Petitioners and a common impugned order has been passed and only Financial Year 2017-18 is mentioned in respect of the impugned order 3rd February, 2025, the Petitioner shall be permitted to file one consolidated appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Considering the amount that has been demanded from the Petitioners and the pre-deposit that is to be made, the Petitioners are given time till 15th July, 2025 to file the said appeal along with the pre-deposit on the tax amount - If the appeal is filed by 15th July, 2025, the same shall be considered and adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
-
2025 (6) TMI 515
Seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the Respondent-Department for allowing the application for cancellation of the GST Registration - HELD THAT:- The wife of the deceased has filed the copy of the death certificate of Mr. Yogesh Bansal. Considering the nature of the matter, let the application for cancellation of GST Registration be considered by the Respondent- Department and an order be passed within a period of three months.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 514
Wrongful availment of ITC - case of the Petitioner herein is that the SCN was not issued to them and the consequent personal hearing notice was also not issued - burden of proof - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner, having been given adequate notice and the nature of the matter being fraudulent availment of ITC, the Court is not inclined to entertain a writ petition.
This Court, while deciding the above stated matter, has already taken a view in this regard that where cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC are concerned, considering the burden on the exchequer and the nature of impact on the GST regime, the writ jurisdiction ought not to be exercised in such cases.
This Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition - the Petitioner is permitted to avail of the appellate remedy by 15th July, 2025, along with the necessary pre-deposit mandated under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, in which case the appeal shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 513
Fraudulent availment of ITC - SCN which led to the passing of the consequent impugned order was not received by the Petitioner and hence no reply was filed to the SCN - HELD THAT:- This Court, while deciding the above stated matter being Mukesh Kumar Garg [2025 (5) TMI 922 - DELHI HIGH COURT], has already taken a view in this regard that where cases involving allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC are concerned, considering the burden on the exchequer and the nature of impact on the GST regime, writ jurisdiction ought not to be exercised in such cases.
However, the Petitioner is at liberty to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal by 15th July, 2025, along with the necessary pre-deposit mandated under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. If the appeal is filed within the said time period, the appeal shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 512
Short payment of tax - Revenue Department seeks to construe discounts given by various manufacturers as an income on which Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) is payable - HELD THAT:- Considering the nature of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that discounts given by manufacturers to retailers, prima facie, cannot be considered as a consideration for services rendered by the retailer. Accordingly, the impugned order shall remain stayed.
List before the Joint Registrar on 18th July, 2025.
-
2025 (6) TMI 511
Challenge to order as contained in Form GST DRC-07 and Form GST DRC-01 - quashing certain proceedings initiated subsequent to the inspection done made in the premises of the petitioner in his absence - HELD THAT:- It is only stated by respondents that DRC-07 along with adjudication order has been passed/issued by following the provisions and procedures as enshrined in the JGST Act, 2017, but nowhere it is stated that the said order has been uploaded on the portal and was available on the date of its passing on 14.03.2019.
It is the duty of the respondents, who have passed the order, to upload it on the portal or communicate it to the petitioner otherwise on the petitioner’s e-mail. In the light of the docket proceedings dated 14.03.2019 of the 4th respondent which indicates that DRC-07 was not uploaded on the very same day and in absence of any statement by the respondents as to when it was actually uploaded, it has to be held that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice on account of non-supply of the said order.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 510
Reversal of ITC - double taxation - petitioner was not aware as no intimation was given by the respondent-Authority - appeal dismissed on ground of delay - HELD THAT:- It appears that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has reversed the ITC for the period 2017-18 on 19.10.2018 and therefore, the respondent could not have assumed the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice on the ground that the petitioner has failed to reverse the ITC. Moreover, the petitioner has also admitted that as the GST Portal was new, the petitioner was not familiar with such portal and could not verify the uploading of the notice and subsequent Order-in-Original on the portal and the petitioner came to know about the same only when the Order-in-Original was served in physical form on 03.05.2024 and the petitioner has already preferred an Appeal before 06.05.2024, however, Appellate Authority has not condoned the delay as per the provisions of Section 107 of the GST Act and therefore, the petitioner had no option but to file the present petition.
It also appears that the respondent has not disputed about the reversal of the ITC by the petitioner for the period 2017-18 and only contention raised is that there is no reconciliation available with the respondent regarding the ITC reversed by the petitioner for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19. In such circumstances, only remedy available is to quash the impugned Order-in-Original and remand the matter back to the respondent-Authority to verify the reversal of the ITC made by the petitioner for the period 2017-18 in accordance with law and pass appropriate fresh de novo order in accordance with law.
Conclusion - i) The impugned show cause notice and Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2023 were quashed as being without jurisdiction and arbitrary. ii) The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on delay grounds, but the Court recognized the petitioner's lack of knowledge due to non-communication.
The impugned Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent-Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh de novo order within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 509
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate efficacious remedy in the nature of an appeal - HELD THAT:- There can be no two views or quarrel over the proposition. However, when the remedy of appeal is very much available for the petitioner, and relying on the Apex Court judgment in Greatship (India) Limited [2022 (9) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT], the petitioner must avail the same first and then approach this Court or the appropriate forum.
The petition is dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 508
Wrongly availing of Input Tax Credit or availing of excess Input Tax Credit - argument is premised on the basis that the Central Tax Authorities had initiated proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 prior to initiation of any proceedings by the State Tax Authorities - HELD THAT:- The matter placed on Board on 15th April 2025 under the same caption. We put the parties to notice that notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Writ Petition may be disposed off at that stage itself, time permitting.
In the meanwhile, and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, we direct that the impugned order dated 21st November 2023 passed by the State Tax Authorities shall remained stayed until further orders.
Stand over to 15th April 2025.
-
2025 (6) TMI 507
100% EOU - rejection of application for refund of Input Tax Credit paid on export of goods and services - maintainability of manual application for refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) - HELD THAT:- The application for refund submitted by the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that a manual application is not maintainable relying upon Rule 89 of the CGST Rules. The aforesaid Rule describes that a person claiming refund of any tax, interest or penalty, may file an application electronically in Form GST RFD-01 through the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre. However, Rule 97A of the CGST Rules, which is incorporated on 15.11.2017, stipulates that, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter X, any application/intimation, notice, order or certificate referred to in that chapter shall include manual filing as well. The purpose of Rule 97A of the CGST Rules is explicit.
In the decision in Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others [2021 (12) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the Bombay High Court had observed that since Rule 97A contains a non-obstante clause, it is intended to override Rules 89 to 97 of the CGST Rules. It was also observed that the plain and simple construction of Rule 97A is that despite Rule 89 providing for electronic filing of applications for refund on the common portal, in respect of any process or procedure prescribed in Chapter X, any reference to electronic filing of an application on the common portal shall, in respect of that process or procedure, include manual filing of the said application. It was finally concluded that the circular would certainly be applicable to all applications filed electronically on the common portal, but cannot affect or control Rule 97A of the CGST Rules or derogate from it.
On a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the rejection of petitioner’s application for refund is not on account of any reason that the refund application already submitted by the petitioner showed the amount of refund as ‘Nil’. The impugned order has not referred to any such reason and instead, found the application not liable to be processed only for the reason that it was filed manually.
Conclusion - i) Manual refund applications under the CGST Rules are maintainable. ii) Rejection of refund application solely due to manual filing is unsustainable. iii) The petitioner's refund application was timely filed in view of the limitation extension.
The impugned order Exhiit-P4 dated 10.08.2022 is hereby set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 506
Seeking a direction to the second respondent to pass separate orders for each financial year pursuant to Ext.P1 notice - grant of sufficient time to file a reply to the show cause notice - HELD THAT:- A composite order for several financial years is not legally proper. Since already the proceedings for financial year 2017-2018 has culminated, the second respondent has to pass appropriate orders for each of the remaining financial years mentioned in Ext.P1 notice separately. I am fortified in the above view, by the decision in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobile Accessories 2025 SCC online KER 852 where a Division Bench of this Court observed that separate orders of determination are essential even under the CGST Act.
Petitioner has already filed a reply notice for the financial years 2018- 2019 to 2021-2022, and therefore appropriate orders thereon can be passed by the second respondent in accordance with law, separately for each of those financial years. As far as the financial year 2022- 2023 and 2023-2024 are concerned, since petitioner has not filed a reply till date, he is granted the liberty to file the reply to the show cause notice within one month from today and thereafter appropriate separate orders can be issued by the second respondent.
Writ petition is disposed of.
............
|
9911796707
