|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 11440 Records
-
2024 (3) TMI 1167 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Challenged the order in original passed by the CGST Authority - Appeallable order - HELD THAT:- This is not a case where the impugned order has been passed by an authority having inherent lack of jurisdiction or is without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or the same is contrary to any specific provisions of law or constitutional validity of any provision of law is involved and furthermore, since the impugned order is an appellable order under the statute and this case does not fall under those categories of cases where in spite of availability of alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to invoke its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, without going into the merit of the impugned adjudication order, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, this writ petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1165 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Transitional credit - Disparity was on account of the transitional credit availed of and reflected in the GSTR 9 annual return - mismatch between the Input Tax Credit (ITC) reported in GSTR 9 versus the GSTR 3B returns - HELD HAT:- The petitioner clearly stated in reply dated 21.09.2023 that transitional ITC of Rs. 1,15,40,474/- was claimed and that this is reflected in the GSTR 9 return but not in the GSTR 3B return. As regards the alleged defect pertaining to Director's remuneration, in the reply dated 27.10.2023, the petitioner stated that the Directors of the Company are based at the head office in Mumbai and that their remuneration would be taxable on RCM basis in the State of Maharashtra and not in Tamil Nadu. Similarly, as regards the blocked credit, it was expressly stated in the reply dated 27.10.2023 that no ITC was claimed in respect of the four items specified under defect no.2.
In the impugned order, the respondent has confirmed the tax demand without taking into consideration the above replies of the petitioner. This is also the case with regard to the other defects discussed in the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable.
The impugned order dated 31.12.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration by the respondent - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1164 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - the impugned order was issued after the petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice or participate in proceedings in spite of being provided an opportunity to do so - attachment of bank account - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax liability indicated therein is a sum of Rs. 95,666/-. The petitioner has placed on record proof of payment of Rs. 96,132/- by submitting Form GST DRC-03. The impugned order also indicates that the petitioner was not heard before such order was issued. Given the fact that revenue interest is fully secured as on date, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be provided an opportunity of being heard.
The impugned order dated 12.09.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.
As a consequence of the impugned assessment order being quashed, the bank attachment order shall stand raised.
The writ petition is allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1163 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Challenged the order of cancellation of registration - appeal preferred was dismissed on the ground of limitation - limitation of filing of an appeal - date of the order - HELD THAT:- The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the appeal has been dismissed as being beyond limitation as such the doctrine of merger would not apply and the petitioner is fair entitled to seek judicial review of the order dated 14.02.2023 on the ground that the same is non speaking order. This Court in M/S Chandrasen, Sarda Nagar, Lucknow vs Union of India and others [2022 (9) TMI 1047 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] had held that the order of cancellation of registration or any other order passed either on administrative or on judicial side is without any reason and prima facie, without application of mind, the same does not stand the test of scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Thus, following the said judgment rendered in the case of M/s Chandrasen (Supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 14.02.2023 is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent along with the reply to show cause notice and the certified copy of this order within three weeks from today.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1162 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Time Limitation - issuing a notice after the detention and then in passing the final order from the date of service of such notice - two figures in the vehicle number differing from that recorded in the e-way bills - HELD THAT:- Annexure-P/1 is series of e-way bills which shows the transport to be in vehicle no. UP78 CT 9645. On detention the transport was found to be made in a vehicle having no. UP78 CT 9650. The petitioner produced documents, as stated in the writ petition, establishing that the vehicles bearing both the registration numbers belonged to the petitioner. The tax authority in the order passed specifically pointed out that this would further the case of evasion and if the vehicles were with two different operators probably the recording of the number in the e-way bill was a bonafide mistake - the merits of the case need no consideration, especially when the contention is of bar by virtue of limitation.
Be that as it may, even if the detention is stated to be on 28.12.2023, the notice was only issued on 05.1.2024, after the seven day period provided in Section 129(3) CGST Act. Likewise when the petitioner had been informed at the time of verification, if the petitioner had sought for time on the seventh day from the date of serving of notice, there was nothing preventing the tax authority from rejecting the said prayer and passing the order, especially since, if the matter is kept pending, the proceedings would be barred by limitation.
The Limitation is clear and definite. The facts of the case indicate that the officers did not act in accordance with the provisions, we hence find no reason to sustain the demand raised. We set aside the orders passed for detention of the vehicles. The vehicle with the goods would be released immediately. Ordered, accordingly.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1161 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - rejection has been made primarily on the ground that the petitioner has failed to file their returns for more than six (06) months continuously - HELD THAT:- It is necessary to appreciate the fact that the show cause notice was that of December, 2020. Everybody knows that since March, 2020, onwards it was Covid pandemic that ripped through the entire country bringing the entire commercial and industrial establishments to a standstill or at least remaining closed for a major part of that period. The business of these establishments including that of the petitioner must have definitely been affected - If the default on the part of the petitioner is only so far as non-furnishing of the returns, we are of the considered opinion that subject to the petitioner making good the default, the said GST registration of the petitioner would get restored which would enable the petitioner to carry on his business and which would also generate GST revenue to the respondent authorities as well.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also undertaken to make good the necessary default so far as non-furnishing of the GST returns are concerned along with late fees and penalty that would be applicable.
The present Writ Petition stands allowed directing the petitioner to immediately appear before the respondent authorities by 12.03.2024 and upon furnishing the entire GST returns up till date which they have not yet filed along with requisite late fees and penalty if any, the respondent authorities shall forthwith restore the GST registration of the petitioner without any further scrutiny so far as the default of non-payment of GST returns till now is concerned and the same is a onetime measure.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1160 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking release of goods in terms of the provision of Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 - SCN issued to the petitioner in its capacity as the consignee - HELD THAT:- The transaction disclosed to the revenue authorities was one of job work return to the petitioner (a registered dealer in the State of Haryana) from a dealer in Daurala. The goods were intercepted during movement through the State of Uttar Pradesh - Penalty order has also been passed against the petitioner in its capacity as the consignee. The case of the revenue is that the petitioner has also prepared delivery challan of job worker and therefore, the penalty has been rightly imposed. At the same time, upon query made, learned counsel for the revenue fairly states, no person other than the petitioner has claimed the goods.
Undoubtedly, under Section 129 of UPGST Act, 2017, different rates of penalties are prescribed depending upon the status of the person viz-a-viz, the goods that may have been seized. Again, undoubtedly the owner of the goods may not be visited with penalty exceeding 200 percent of the tax leviable on the offending goods.
Learned counsel for the petitioner last submits that the goods may be made over to the petitioner subject to its complying Section 129 (1)(a) of UPGST Act, 2017 with liberty to appeal against the penalty order.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed at this stage itself to the extent, petitioner is permitted to obtain release of goods against furnishing security equal to 200 percent of the tax imposable on the goods.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1132 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- Clearly, the case of the petitioner is covered by the Notification dated 05.07.2022, which excludes the aforesaid period for computation of period of limitation. Accordingly, rejection of the claim for refund of the petitioner solely on the ground of limitation is not sustainable.
Impugned orders both dated 11.01.2022 for the respective tax period are set aside. Refund applications are restored on the record of the Assessing Authority, who is directed to decide the applications in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from today.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1131 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand including penalty - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory. He merely held that the reply is not clear and unsatisfactory which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that the reply is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory, if further any details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order records that petitioner’s reply is not clear, unsatisfactory, incomplete and not duly supported by adequate documents. Proper Officer is directed to intimate to the petitioner details/documents, as maybe required to be furnished by the petitioner. Pursuant to the intimation being given, petitioner shall furnish the requisite explanation and documents. Thereafter, the Proper Officer shall re-adjudicate the show cause notice after giving an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the Act.
The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1130 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - SCN does not specify any cogent reason - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice and the impugned order are bereft of any details accordingly the same cannot be sustained. Neither the show cause notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.
In terms of Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. The registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria.
It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such period. Although, it is not considered apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in this regard is correct, it would follow that the proper officer is also required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
The order dated 18.02.2022 and Show Cause Notice dated 04.01.2022 cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored. The petitioner shall, however, make all necessary compliances and file the requisite returns and information inter alia in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1129 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand including penalty - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory. He merely held that the reply is not clear and unsatisfactory which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that the reply is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory, if further any details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order records that petitioner’s reply is not clear, unsatisfactory, incomplete and not duly supported by adequate documents. Proper Officer is directed to intimate to the petitioner details/documents, as maybe required to be furnished by the petitioner. Pursuant to the intimation being given, petitioner shall furnish the requisite explanation and documents. Thereafter, the Proper Officer shall re-adjudicate the show cause notice after giving an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the Act.
The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1128 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand including penalty - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory. He merely held that the reply is not clear and unsatisfactory which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that the reply is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unsatisfactory, if further any details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order records that petitioner’s reply is not clear, unsatisfactory, incomplete and not duly supported by adequate documents. Proper Officer is directed to intimate to the petitioner details/documents, as maybe required to be furnished by the petitioner. Pursuant to the intimation being given, petitioner shall furnish the requisite explanation and documents. Thereafter, the Proper Officer shall re-adjudicate the show cause notice after giving an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the Act.
The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1127 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Seeking an order granting Police custody of A.1 for ten days - creating false GST accounts and claiming irregular Input Tax Credit - conspiracy with the companies with a common intention of misappropriating funds - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the Respondent/A.1 served as an Additional Director at Messrs. Avexa Corporation Private Limited for 67 days, specifically from 09.12.2019 to 14.02.2020. In the impugned Order, the learned Magistrate noted that the alleged forged invoices, submitted by the Accused company's Directors to claim the input tax credit, and Annexure-9A, consisting of purported fake bills from the shell company Tanisha Infra Zone Private Limited, as referenced on pages 15, 16, and 17, were relied upon by the Prosecution. Notably, these bills were raised on 18.03.2019, 22.03.2019, and 26.02.2019, respectively, when A.1 was not serving as an Additional Director at M/s. Avexa Corporation Private Limited. The learned Magistrate arrived at this conclusion based on the documents presented by the Prosecution, considering it as one of the reasons for denying the Order for police custody.
The learned Magistrate has additionally considered the remarks provided in the remand report, which highlight that the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) had previously investigated the submission of counterfeit invoice bills by the shell companies associated with the firm. These entities purportedly claimed to be engaged in development activities in the Amaravati region, although no actual work transpired. Consequently, the DGGI recommended a penalty of Rs. 16 crores against A.1's company under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This indicates that the DGGI, Hyderabad, has already undertaken a significant portion of the investigation.
It is also observed in the report that after verifying all the existing records available with ADCL, the payment was released to the extent of work done after following the due procedure of the Department and per the terms and conditions of the agreement and after due certification by PMC M/s. LEA Associates South Asia Private Limited, at every stage, as mentioned in Para No. 6(A), to ensure that the requisite quality & quantity checks are done both by the PMC in the presence of the Department & the Principal Contractor.
Having not disputed the detailed report of the committee, it is now somewhat difficult to appreciate the contention of the Petitioner/Complainant that the diversion of Government funds by Avexa through the shell companies has to be investigated - Upon considering the entire material on record, this Court finds no illegality in the Order passed by the learned Magistrate, and it needs not be interfered with.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1096 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty - goods were unloaded at a place that was not registered in the registration certificate - shifting of burden of proof on the assessee to show that there was no intention to evade tax (onus to prove) - HELD THAT:- The intention to evade tax is sine qua non for imposition of penalty. The facts in the present clearly indicate that the place where the goods were unloaded is the godown belonging to the petitioner and not to any third party. It is not in dispute that this particular godown was registered as place of business of the petitioner in the erstwhile Value Added Tax regime.
There is no intention to evade tax whatsoever. The imposition of penalty in such circumstances is not warranted. The judgement of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (4) TMI 466 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] also supports the case of the petitioner that unloading of goods at a different place by itself would not lead to imposition of penalty.
The impugned order dated July 28, 2022 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1095 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - SCN does not specify any cogent reason - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are bereft of any details accordingly the same cannot be sustained and neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.
In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria.
It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, it is not considered apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention is required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
It is clear that both the petitioner and the respondent want the GST registration to be cancelled, though for different reasons - In view of the fact that the Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 08.11.2022 i.e., the date when the Show Cause Notice was issued. Petitioner shall make the necessary compliances as required by Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1094 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand including penalty u/s 73 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was incomplete. He merely held that the reply is incomplete and lacks supporting documents which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1093 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Challenged the order cancelling the registration - barred by limitation - non-application of mind - HELD THAT:- Admittedly from the perusal of the order dated 20.01.2022. it transpires that no reason has been assigned for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner. In absence of the same the order cannot be justified in the eye of law. Further since the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay, this Court finds that the doctrine of merger will have no application considering the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Thus, the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent no.3 is hereby quashed - The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1092 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are also bereft of any details. Accordingly the same cannot be sustained and neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.
In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria.
It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such period. Although, it is not considered apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
It is clear that both the petitioner and the respondent want the GST registration to be cancelled, though for different reasons - In view of the fact that Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 29.11.2020 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 01.10.2019 i.e., the date when Petitioner applied for cancellation of GST registration. Petitioner shall make the necessary compliances as required by Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1091 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are bereft of any details accordingly the same cannot be sustained and neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.
In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria.
It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such period. Although, it is not considered apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention is required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
It is clear that both the petitioner and the respondent want the GST registration to be cancelled, though for different reasons - In view of the fact that Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 01.12.2020 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 19.11.2020 i.e., the date when the Show Cause Notice was issued. Petitioner shall make the necessary compliances as required by Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1090 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the replies submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand with penalty u/s 73 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was devoid of merits. He merely held that the reply is devoid of merits which exfacie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Petition disposed off.
............
|
