|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 113
Cancellation of GST registration - Forged SCN showing that SCNs did not mention any reasons, based on which the GST registrations of the Petitioners were cancelled - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The entire facts that have been revealed in this case shows that the petitions filed by the Petitioners were filed by fictitious persons and it is not even clear as to whether the persons who have filed these petitions even exist as forged Aadhaar Cards have been used by the said persons. The same have been identified by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. The affidavits have been attested and relief has been obtained in these matters.
The UIDAI data is usually protected by the laws of privacy. However, considering the nature of the illegalities in this matter, the details supplied by the UIDAI of all the four persons including their addresses and mobile numbers are handed over to the ld. Counsels appearing for the Department i.e. Mr. Panwar and Mr. Singla as also to Mr. Sanjay Lao, ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal), GNCTD.
List these matters on 29th May, 2025 at 2:30 p.m.
-
2025 (6) TMI 112
Recovery of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - amount duplicated in the notices - amount was deposited by the Petitioner during investigation - HELD THAT:- The Court has examined the matter and it is prima facie seen that the amount of Rs. Rs.60,73,541/- is duplicated as captured in the impugned Order-in-Original.
The Petitioner would be permitted to prefer appeals challenging both the orders dated 1st February, 2025 and 4th February, 2025 and a pre-deposit qua the demand of Rs. 2,83,56,714/- shall be paid in filing the appeal challenging the impugned order 1st February, 2025. In the second appeal, no pre-deposit shall be paid on the grounds of duplication - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 111
Seeking quashing of FIR - issuance of false and fake invoices and E-Way bills with an intent to cheat the complainant - HELD THAT:- The well settled proposition of law is that except in exceptional circumstances where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Courts ought not to interfere at the stage of investigation of an offence as if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, the same thwarts legitimate investigation. Reliance in this context can be made to the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, [2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT], wherein after analyzing a catena of judicial precedents, it was observed that the police had statutory right and duty to investigate into cognizable offences under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Courts should not thwart any investigation into cognizable offences. The criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. While examining a FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
Reliance can be placed upon Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, [2003 (7) TMI 744 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held that the Court should not interfere with investigation or during the course of investigation i.e. till the filing of a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. by exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
Recourse to quashing of FIR has to be taken only in rarest of rare cases and when the investigation of a case is at its nascent stage, this power should be used sparingly. In the instant case, the investigation is at its initial stage. The petitioner has not joined the same so far. After conducting preliminary inquiry, an FIR has been registered since it appears prima facie that cognizable offences were committed by the petitioner. However, it cannot be ascertained at this stage as to whether the petitioner had any intention to dupe the complainant and cause wrongful loss to him by not fulfilling the obligations cast upon him or not? The FIR has also been lodged after a gap of about three years from the date when the offences alleged were committed. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would be premature to pronounce any conclusion based on given facts that the FIR does not deserve to be investigated.
Conclusion - The FIR registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC cannot be quashed at this stage. The petitioner's contention of false implication and civil nature of dispute is not a ground for quashing.
This Court is of the opinion that no case for quashing of FIR has been made out at this stage. As such, no ground for allowing the petition is made out. As a consequence, the same is dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 110
Seeking grant of regular bail - availing and passing on fraudulent Input Tax Credit - compoundable offences or not - HELD THAT:- The offences alleged carry minimum punishment of 06 months and a maximum punishment of 05 years of imprisonment. Further, Section 138 of the CGST Act is relevant, as per which, the offences under Section 132 of the Act are compoundable.
Reference must also be made to P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, [2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT], wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that even economic offences would fall under the category of ‘grave offence’ and while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court has to be sensitive to the nature of the allegations made against the accused as well as the term of sentence i.e. prescribed for the offence that the accused is alleged to have committed. It was also observed that the reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses as well as character, behavior and standing of the accused and the circumstances that are peculiar to the accused and the larger interest of the public should also be taken into consideration.
Considering that the alleged offences are punishable with maximum punishment up to 05 years and also keeping in view that in such circumstances, the further detention of the petitioners may not at all be justified since in case of this nature, the evidence to be rendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic, which will be through official witnesses, due to which, there cannot be any apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing the witnesses and further as it appears justified to strike a fine balance between the need for further detention of the petitioner when no custodial interrogation has been claimed at all by the department, this Court considers that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail but subject to certain conditions.
Conclusion - The petitions moved by both the petitioners are hereby allowed and they are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned/Duty Magistrate, subject to the fulfilment of conditions imposed.
Bail application allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 109
Challenge to SCN and consequent order - challenge to vires of N/N. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - case of the Petitioner is that the SCN is belated and is liable to be quashed, in view of the fact that the impugned notification is ultra vires - Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notification is under consideration before the Supreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions. Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observed that the validity of the impugned notification therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. [2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER].
Conclusion - 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 allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 108
Challenge to impugned orders of detention, notice of confiscation, and order of confiscation issued under the GST regime - respondent authority has passed the impugned orders without giving any opportunity of hearing and without considering the reply filed by the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In view of the findings arrived at by the respondent authority it appears that the existence of relation between the two entities i.e. M/s. Dhatu Metallo Industries Private Limited and M/s. Mewad Scrap and contentions raised by the petitioner, is giving rise to the disputed of questions of fact and therefore we are not inclined to entertain this petition while exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others V/s. M/s. Commercial Steel Limited [2021 (9) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it is held 'There was, in fact, no fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of the facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent.'
Thus, without entering into the merits of the matter the petition is disposed of, so as to enable the petitioner to avail alternative efficacious remedy by preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act to challenge the impugned order passed in Form GST MOV - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 107
Provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account u/s 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - reasons to believe and the material upon which the 2nd Respondent derived its opinion that the attachment of the Bank Account was necessary, is never been furnished to the Petitioner till date - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On a bare reading of Section 83(1) it is clear that where, after the initiation of any proceeding under Chapter XII, Chapter XIV or Chapter XV, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government Revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may, by an order in writing, provisionally attach any property, including a Bank Account of the taxable person. The power provided under Section 83 has to be exercised in the manner provided therein. The power to cause attachment of a Bank Account is drastic in nature, inasmuch as, it could in certain situations, bring the business of the taxable person to a grinding halt.
The impugned order refers to the proceedings initiated under Section 67 as the basis for causing the Provisional Attachment. This is undisputed. Admittedly, the proceedings under Section 67 stood concluded on 18th October 2024 and there is no determination of any tax amount, or even calling upon the Petitioner to show-cause as to why any tax amount ought not to be recovered from him. No proceedings for raising a demand on the Petitioner have been filed till date. This apart, before the attachment is levied, the Commissioner has to form an opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of Government Revenue, it is necessary to attach any property, including the Bank Account of the taxable person. This opinion has to be based on material, and cannot be on the basis of assumptions and presumptions of the Commissioner. The impugned order dated 27th January 2025 does not set out any material which form the basis of the opinion for attaching the Bank Account of the Petitioner.
Conclusion - Attachment cannot be sustained if proceedings under Section 67 have concluded without any demand or show-cause notice.
The impugned order is unsustainable and would have to be set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 106
Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) - claim pertaining to periods prior to the effective date of N/N. 09/2022-Central Tax (dated 13.07.2022, effective 18.07.2022), filed after the said effective date but within the statutory limitation period - HELD THAT:- In the case of Patanjali Foods (Supra), this Court while dealing with the Notification No.1 3/2022–Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 and Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022, after relying upon the ratio in the case of Ascent Meditech Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2025 (3) TMI 367 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] had struck down paragraph No. 2(2) of the Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 by which two classes of the Refund Applications i.e. whether filed before 13.07.2022 or filed after 13.07.2022 was sought to be created by the Respondent-Department. In the present case, the Petitioner had filed his Refund Application on 07.011.2022 which was well within the period of limitation under Section 54 (1) of the Act as will be evident from the Chart at Paragraph No. 3.3 hereinabove. In such view of the matter, following the decision of Patanjali Foods since the Refund Applications in question were filed within the period of limitation, the same could not be rejected, by placing reliance on Circular No.181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022.
Conclusion - The refund claim filed by the Petitioner on 07.11.2022 for periods prior to 18.07.2022 is maintainable as it was within the statutory limitation period.
The impugned rejection Order is clearly erroneous and hence, is hereby quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 105
Challenge to order of the respondent - reversal of suo moto debiting of the Electronic Credit Ledger of the Petitioner - non-service of notices - notices were uploaded in the GST Portal under the unusual column, i.e. 'View Additional Notice/Orders' - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The service effected by the respondent through on-line portal cannot be deemed to be sufficient service. It is pertinent to mention here that though Section 169 of the Act, particularly, clause (d) prescribes mode of service via. Online Portal, the very same Section also prescribes many modes of services for sending notice to the assessees, of which, valid modes of sending GST Notices are hand-delivering the notices either directly or by a messenger by a courier to the taxpayer or his authorized representative, by registered post or a speed post or a courier with an acknowledgement addressed to the last known address of the taxpayer.
When the respondent-Department realizes the fact that the notice effected via, On-line portal service does not fetch them any reply/response, instead of sticking on to the similar of mode of service by sending notices/reminders incessantly, they could change mode of service and this Court suggests that notice through RPAD would be the best mode of service,in which case, the assessee cannot take advantage of the notice being unnoticed or plead ignorance, and in the case of the same being not delivered due to reasons such as 'No such addressee', 'Incorrect address', proper endorsement to such effect would be available to the respondent- Department, and in the case of acceptance by the assessee, acknowledgement of the same would be available, thereafter, there won't be any fetter on the respondent-GST Department to proceed against the assessees in the manner known to law.
This Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is an ex parte order as the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside on account of the fact that the petitioner has not been heard before passing such order. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order - the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.
-
2025 (6) TMI 102
Challenge to impugned order - ITC has been availed by fraud or mis-statement - HELD THAT:- In the personal affidavit filed by Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeals), Mainpuri, pursuant to the order of this Court, there is no mention of any provision or notification empowering the authority not passing the judgement on the date fixed, but on a later date, to which neither any notice was issued nor the petitioner was heard on the next date.
The issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in M/s Wonder Enterprises [2024 (9) TMI 1749 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'Once the higher authority under the GST Act and the counsel appearing for the State has accepted the fact that there is no such provision for passing an order on a later date of hearing, the impugned order 07.03.2024 passed by respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. GST AD0905220410341/2022, F.Y. 2018-19 cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be dismissed.'
The impugned order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeals), Mainpuri cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matters require reconsideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 101
Challenge to impugned order with summary order passed by the respondent no.3 as well as the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 under section 130 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- Looking to the fact that controversy raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar [2024 (8) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], the present case is being decided without exchanging the pleadings.
In S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar, this Court has held that if excess stock is found, the proceedings under section 73 and 74 of UPGST Act will come into play and the proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act cannot be initiated.
The impugned order dated 27.7.2022, 3.1.2023 and 27.11.2024 passed in the proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act, are hereby quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 100
Fraudulent availment of iTC - ITC has been availed by fraud or mis-statement - HELD THAT:- In the personal affidavit filed by Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeals), Mainpuri, pursuant to the order of this Court, there is no mention of any provision or notification empowering the authority not passing the judgement on the date fixed, but on a later date, to which neither any notice was issued nor the petitioner was heard on the next date.
The issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in M/s Wonder Enterprises [2024 (9) TMI 1749 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'Once the higher authority under the GST Act and the counsel appearing for the State has accepted the fact that there is no such provision for passing an order on a later date of hearing, the impugned order 07.03.2024 passed by respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. GST AD0905220410341/2022, F.Y. 2018-19 cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be dismissed.'
In view of the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case as noted above, the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeals), Mainpuri cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matters require reconsideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 99
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of more than six months - HELD THAT:- Annexure-4 Colly is perused, which indicates that the petitioner has submitted his GST returns up to May, 2024.
Further, it appears that in the case of Ms. Yassung Yangfo vs the Union of India and 2 Ors, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24.02.2025, relying upon a decision of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Krishanu Borthakur vs. Union of India [2025 (1) TMI 721 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT], had interfered with the GST cancellation order and also directed the Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhalukpung Range to intimate the petitioner therein the total outstanding statutory dues, if any, standing in the name of the petitioner till the date of cancellation of the GST registration.
Taking note of the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, the impugned cancellation order dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure-3 of this petition) is interfered with and accordingly, the same stands set aside and quashed. The respondent No. 3 is directed to intimate the petitioner if any statutory dues are pending and if any such dues are pending, then upon payment of the said dues, the respondent No. 3 will pass appropriate order to restore the GST registration of the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 98
Entitlement for input tax credit for alleged transaction having been taken place between the supplier, Shree Radhey International, Delhi and petitioner in the year 2018 - HELD THAT:- Section 16(2) was amended and sub-section (2)(c) was amended to the extent that the words “or Section 43A” were omitted by Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.10.2022. Moreover, Section 41 which previously dealt with “claim of input tax credit and provisional acceptance thereof” was also substituted by Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.10.2022 with “availment of input tax credit”.
In the case in hand, petitioner is claiming ITC on the basis of supplies made by Shree Radhey International in the year 2018. Admittedly, only tax invoice was issued by the supplier. The alleged tax to have been charged was never deposited by the supplier and no compliance of Section 16(2)(c) was made. The eligibility and availment of ITC is subject to deposit of tax by supplier which is clear from the reading of sub-section (2)(c) - The provision is simple and clear, and there is no ambiguity as regards actual payment of tax by supplier to Government. Once the supplier has not deposited the tax mandated under sub-section (2)(c) of Section 16, the petitioner purchaser cannot claim the benefit.
In M/s Solvi Enterprises [2025 (3) TMI 1313 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], the co-ordinate Bench while dealing with Section 16 and 74 of the Act had not noticed the import of sub-section (2)(c) while granting the benefit of ITC on the ground that the registration of the seller dealer was cancelled on the subsequent date when the transaction had admittedly taken place - From the reading of the judgment, it appears that provisions of subsection (2)(c) of Section 16 was not brought to the notice of the Court by State Counsel appearing in the matter.
In the instant case, notice under Section 74(1) was issued by taxing authorities after it was found that registration of the supplier Shree Radhey International was cancelled and no tax was deposited by him while ITC was claimed on the alleged transaction between the supplier and the purchaser.
Reliance place upon the various judgments by petitioner’s counsel does not help her case as no consideration of mandatory provision of Section 16(2)(c) of the Act has been considered. Moreover, in many of the cases placed before the Court, the matter has been remanded back to authorities for consideration afresh. In Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. [2023 (1) TMI 1479 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], the show-cause notice issued to petitioner therein was only stayed though challenge is to the vires of Section 16(2)(c) which still holds the field.
No interference is required in the orders impugned - Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 97
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- In M/S VISHWA ENTERPRISE VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2025 (3) TMI 1487 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein on squarely similar facts, it was argued that the copy of the impugned order therein ought to have been signed by the concerned authority and the same not being signed, is invalid. The Gujarat High Court while considering the facts and contentions inter alia held that in view of the fact that the impugned order therein was uploaded on the GSTN portal which can only be done after verification by the concerned State Tax Officer, the said order is valid.
Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the review petition is unmerited, both on the issue of lack of error apparent on the face of the record as also on merits.
Review petition dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 96
Requirement to pay GST in respect of those expenses which were incurred by the Petitioner but were not cross-charged with the other entities - Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST dated 17th July, 2023 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the Order-in-Original clearly shows that there were no cross-charges of expenses with the other entities. Moreover, the second proviso to Rule 28 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 has been applied without giving benefit of the Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST and consideration to the said circular.
Under such circumstances this Court of the view that the Adjudicating Authority needs to reconsider the matter in the light Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST dated 17th July, 2023 and the judgment in Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [2024 (10) TMI 1534 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where the Court observed 'In the facts of the present writ petitions, it is conceded that no invoices were generated. In view of the above and in light of the explicit terms of the Circular, the value of the service rendered would have to be treated as ‘Nil’. This would lead one to the inescapable conclusion of no perceivable or plausible tax liability possibly being created. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the proceedings initiated in terms of the impugned SCNs’ and their continuance would be futile and impractical.'
Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority shall afford a hearing once again to the Petitioner and pass a fresh order in the light of the Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST dated 17th July, 2023 and the judgement passed in Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 95
Challenge to order as well as rectification order - rectification application moved mainly on the ground that the petitioner submitted that he has paid a credit amount through its personal ledger account at the time of the filing of the appeal - pre deposit as is prescribed under Section 107 (6) (b) of the CGST Act, not made - HELD THAT:- The issue whether the pre deposit is permissible to be made through personal ledger account came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in the case of M/S. FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRINIVASAN KADIRVELU VERSUS THE OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ST), THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (S.T.) -III, CHENNAI [2024 (11) TMI 1333 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein the court held that the pre deposit made through the ECS would be a valid deposit.
Considering and following the same judgement, it would be appropriate to remand the matter - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 94
Seeking grant of refund alongwith interest - amount deposited inadvertently in the Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL) under the GST regime - requirement of physical submission of refund application along with all the requisite documents - HELD THAT:- A refund application is to be filed under Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017(CGST Rules). As per Rule 90 of the CGST Rules, the proper officer shall within 15 days of the application, scrutinize the application and if found to be proper, issue an acknowledgement in FORM GST RFD-02. However, if any deficiency is found, the deficiency memo ought to be issued under FORM GST RFD-03. If the deficiency memo is issued, the deficiencies would have to be cured by the party concerned and in such a case, Rule 93 could be invoked by the Department.
From a perusal of the records, it is clear that from the date of filing of refund application, the mandate for scrutinizing and issuance of deficiency memos within 15 days has not been adhered to by the Department. However, after issuance of the deficiency memo on 3rd March 2020, the Petitioner withdrew the application for refund on 17th March 2020. Thereafter the case of the Petitioner is that it regularly followed up with the department but there is no written communication. The first written communication is of 29th August 2023, when the Petitioner stated that it could not file a reply to the Deficiency Memo due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Vide this letter, the refund was once again sought by the Petitioner.
The entire scheme for grant of refunds has been considered by this Court in BANSAL INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF DGST AND ANR. [2023 (11) TMI 958 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein the Court has clearly held that a party would be entitled to interest on the amount of refund commencing from the date immediately after the expiry of 60 days from the date when an application has been received.
The efficacy of the said scheme is contingent upon the Department adhering to the specific timelines prescribed under the Act and the Rules, which, in the present case, have evidently not been complied with. For whatever reason, the refund or acknowledgment has not taken place till date and the Department has continued to retain the amount - However, even as per the counter affidavit, it is clear that the amount can no longer be retained by the Department. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the amount would be liable to be refunded and cannot be enjoyed by the Department in this manner.
Thus, the Petitioner is entitled to the refund. The only remaining question would be of interest. Even if a 60 days period is counted from the date of refund application, the Petitioner would be entitled to interest for a substantial period of time. The refund application being dated 12th April, 2018, 60 days from there would take the Petitioner to 11th June, 2018.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 93
Seeking grant of regular bail - bribing of public servant - offence punishable under Section 61 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as Sections 7 and 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- Section 7 of the P.C. Act speaks of the "attempt" to obtain a bribe as being in itself an offence. Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The word "attempt" is to imply no more than a mere solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in explicit terms.
Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement to be prosecuted under this law. Further, those public servants, who do not take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen or touts, and those who take valuable things from a person with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable as per Sections 10 and 11 of the P.C. Act, respectively.
It is apparent that there is an active participation of applicant Bharat Singh, who was instrumental in the commission of the present crime and further considering that applicant Vinay Rai has been caught red-handed while he was receiving bribe amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the complainant and upon seizure of his mobile phone, voice recordings have also been found thereby substantiating the allegation of bribe demanded by him from the complainant along with applicant Bharat Singh for settling the tax liability of his business firm “M/s The World of Beauty” as well as in the light of the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of DEVINDER KUMAR BANSAL VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB [2025 (3) TMI 1489 - SUPREME COURT], this Court is of the view that the accused Bharat Singh, the then superintendent (DGARM Cell) entered into criminal conspiracy with co-accused Vinay Rai and Mr. Mishra who has been identified as Anil Kumar Gupta have committed the offences punishable under Section 61 (2) of BNS, 2023 as well as Section 7, 7A of P.C. Act (as amended in 2018) and as such, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants.
The instant bail application filed by the applicants - Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai for offence punishable under Section 61 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7 and 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stands rejected.
-
2025 (6) TMI 92
Challenge to assessment order - without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the present impugned order is passed - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the impugned order of assessment is passed claiming GST dues of Rs.1,28,94,480/- and that the petitioner was not given any opportunity before passing the impugned order, hence, for complying with the principles of natural justice, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order, subject to conditions imposed - petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
