|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 91
Challenge to summary of SCN in Form GST DRC-01 dated 31st May, 2024 (Annexure-2) as well as the order u/s 73 of the Jharkhand GST Act - HELD THAT:- Since in the instant case also, summary of show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 31st May, 2024 (Annexure-2) as well as the order under Section 73 of the Jharkhand GST Act dated 28th August, 2024 (Annexure-3) do not bear the digital signature of the fourth respondent, for the reasons indicated in the judgment rendered in the case of Rajendra Modi [2025 (3) TMI 1488 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT], these proceedings as well as the order dated 28th August, 2024 (Annexure-4) are set aside.
Liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings afresh, if permitted by law.
-
2025 (6) TMI 90
Legality and validity of Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 - HELD THAT:- The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST, dated 31.12.2018 is already under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Association of Technical Textiles Manufacturers and Processors.
Since the issue involved in this petition is already pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline, it is refrained from giving opinion with respect to Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST, dated 31.12.2018, as assailed in this petition. The present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto, shall be binding on this case also.
As the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the interim order passed in this case, would continue to operate and would be governed by the final adjudication of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 89
Challenge to communication, SCN and summary order - fair opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record would indicate that while the impugned order relates to the financial year July 2017 to March 2018 which is the relevant tax period, the very same petitioner herein had preferred WP M/S SEEMA CATERERS VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, THE BANK MANAGER CANARA BANK [2025 (4) TMI 1648 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], in relation to the financial year / tax period from April 2018 to March 2019 which was disposed of by this Court vide final order dated 08.04.2025 which reads 'A perusal of the material on record including the impugned orders would indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not respond/reply to the show cause notice and the impugned ex-parte orders have been passed without hearing the petitioner. Under these circumstances, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner with regard to inability and omission to submit the reply to the show cause notice and participate in the proceedings was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.'
In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in relation to the very same petitioner, the present petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said order.
Conclusion - Adherence to the principles of natural justice is mandatory in GST adjudication proceedings and failure to provide a fair hearing renders the orders liable to be quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of the petitioner submitting its reply to the show-cause notice dated 30.03.2023, in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 88
Refund claim - barred by time limitation or not - Intermediary or an independent service provider - services rendered by the petitioner to its overseas recipient constitute export of services exempt from GST liability or not - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record will indicate that under identical circumstances in the case of M/s. Columbia Sportswear India Sourcing Pvt. Ltd., vs. Union of India & others [2025 (5) TMI 2139 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], this Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not an ‘intermediary’ under Section 2 (13) of the IGST Act and provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the services provided by the petitioner to its overseas service recipients / entities are that of an independent service provider which qualify as export of services under the service tax provisions and 2 (6) of the IGST Act and allowed and disposed of the petitions.
In the instant case, a perusal of the aforesaid Agreement will clearly indicate that at clause No. 10 that the petitioner is not an ‘intermediary’ as wrongly held in the impugned order by the appellate authority and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the Order-in-Original granting refund in favour of the petitioner deserves to be upheld in the present petition. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Amazon’s case supra and the principles laid down therein are directly and squarely applicable to the subject Agreement in the present petition, which accordingly deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 01.09.2023 passed by the appellate authority and restoring the Order-in-Original at Annexure-D dated 28.07.2022 for April, 2022 and May, 2022 and issue further directions in this regard.
Conclusion - i) The petitioner is not an 'intermediary' under the IGST Act or Finance Act but an independent service provider. ii) The services rendered qualify as export of services and are exempt from GST liability under the intermediary classification. iii) The refund claims filed under Section 54 of the CGST Act are maintainable and not barred by limitation.
The impugned order at Annexure-F dated 01.09.2023 insofar as it relates to allowing the appeal in GST A.310/2022-23 passed by the appellate authority for April, 2022 and May, 2022 is hereby set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 87
Challenge to show cause cum demand notice issued u/s 74 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that an order in original has already been passed upon adjudication of the show cause notice, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the same by way of a connected application as the same gives rise to a separate cause of action.
Since, the show cause has already been adjudicated and has merged with the final order, the above writ petition can be disposed of by permitting the petitioners to challenge not only the show cause but also the adjudication order in original dated 5th February, 2025 in a composite manner in accordance with law, if so advised.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2162
Seeking to call for the impugned assessment order - input tax credit has been availed from non-existent dealer - petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax - service of notice - impugned assessment order passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the impugned show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to him. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notices is illegal and unsustainable.
Assuming that sending notices by uploading in the portal is sufficient service, when the Officer who was sending the repeated reminders, received no response from the petitioner, he ought to have applied his/her mind and explored diligently the possibility of sending notices by other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act. Mere uploading notice repeatedly without ensuring their receipt by the petitioner cannot be considered as effective service. Such mechanical compliance does not serve any useful purpose and the same will only lead to multiplicity of litigations, wasting not only the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority / Tribunal and this Court as well. Thus, when there was no response from the tax payer to the notice uploaded in the portal, the Officer should have sent the notice through RPAD, which would have serve the purpose.
There was a failure of effective opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice - the impugned order set aside - the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2161
Seeking grant of bail - evasion of GST - Modification of condition that 'the petitioner is directed to make a deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- - contention of petitioner is that since the petitioner is in custody, he is unable to mobilize the amount required to comply with the condition imposed by this Court to deposit Rs. 50,00,000/- before the trial Court as a precondition for his release - HELD THAT:- The condition in paragraph No.8 imposed on the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 14718 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025 is modified to the effect that the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II) Court, Egmore, Chennai and the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- to the credit of R.R. No. 15 of 2025 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II) Court, Egmore, Chennai, within a period of 10 days from the date of his release, failing which, the bail shall stand dismissed. The other conditions imposed in Crl. O.P. No. 14718 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025 remains unaltered.
Post the matter on 03.06.2025 for reporting compliance.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2160
Seeking grant of bail - evasion of GST - petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- to the credit of the crime number within a period of 10 days from the date of his release - HELD THAT:- It is required to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
Considering the voluntary submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to make a deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the credit of R.R. No. 15 of 2025 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II) Court, Egmore, Chennai, and the remaining sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- within a period of 10 days from the date of his release without prejudice to the right of the defence before the Trial Court. On such deposit and production of proof of Rs. 50,00,000/-, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II) Court, Egmore, Chennai and on further fulfilment of conditions imposed.
Bail application allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2140
Rejection of appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of time limitation - appeal filed with a delay of 192 days - HELD THAT:- Considering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, as well as the fact that the delay has occurred only due to ill-health of the Proprietor of the petitioner's concern, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the Court is inclined to condone the delay of 192 days in filing the appeal.
The delay of 192 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent is condoned and the order of the appellate authority/second respondent is hereby set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2139
Classification of services provided by the petitioner under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) and related statutes - intermediary services or not - Rejection of refund of ITC - applicability of Circulars No. 159/15/2021-GST and No. 135/05/2020-GST - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the Agreement that the service provider has purchasing responsibilities which would help the foreign service recipient to identify who is the best person from whom products can be brought. The work involves surveying of market to identify the best supplier of goods, identifying best factories, visiting of factories, services relating to monitoring of factories selected by the foreign recipient, ensuring timely shipment of goods, tracking shipments, documentation support for which a consideration is paid as service fee. The service provider has to act in his own name and cannot represent and bind the recipient directly or indirectly. Further, it is provided that the relationship would be one of independent contractor and that they are not principal and agent or employer and employee.
Under identical circumstances, while dealing with similar issues pertaining to ‘intermediary’ and ‘intermediary services’, this Court in the case of M/s. Amazon Development Centre India Pvt. Ltd., vs. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax & Another [2025 (5) TMI 150 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held 'the material on record clearly establishes that the activities of the petitioner is of software development and support as well as project management which are rendered by the petitioner on its own account and cannot be considered as intermediary services since the same are not services of arranging or segregating any other supply.'
The material on record also discloses that subsequent to the Circular dated 20.09.2021, the two Circulars, both dated 10.09.2024 have been issued on the scope of what would constitute intermediary services vis-à-vis what would be services rendered on own account.
Learned Senior Counsel also drew my attention to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Bharati Cellular Ltd vs ACIT [2024 (3) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the concept of agency vis-a-vis distributorship agreements came up for detailed consideration, wherein the Supreme Court while holding that the said agreement was one of distributorship and not agency, held 'Clause (d) in paragraph 8 observes that the agent is liable to render accounts to the principal as the business done by the agent is on principal's account. The agent is entitled to remuneration from the principal for the work he performs. To decide whether a contracting party acts for himself as an independent contractor, we may examine whether in the course of work, he intends to make profits for himself, or is entitled to receive prearranged remuneration. If the party is concerned about acting for himself and making the maximum profits possible, he is usually regarded as a buyer, or an independent contractor and not as an agent of the principal. This would be true even when certain terms and conditions have been fixed relating to the manner in which the seller conducts his business.'
The petitioner is not an ‘intermediary’ under Section 2 (13) of the IGST Act and provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the services provided by the petitioner to its service recipients are that of an independent service provider which qualify as export of services under the service tax provisions and 2 (6) of the IGST Act and consequently, the impugned orders and demand of the respondents deserve to be quashed.
Refund claim - rejected on the ground that the same is barred by limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The refund claim of the petitioner in W.P. No. 3420/2023 and W.P. No.3376/2023 is clearly not barred by limitation as erroneously/wrongly held by the respondents and consequently, the said findings also deserve to be set aside.
Conclusion - i) The petitioner's services are not intermediary services. ii) The petitioner's services qualify as export of services under the IGST Act. iii) The petitioner is entitled to refund of unutilized ITC along with interest. iv) The refund claims are not barred by limitation in view of CBIC Notification. v) The impugned orders rejecting refund claims and demanding service tax are quashed. vi) The constitutional validity challenges to statutory provisions and circulars are left open for appropriate cases. vii) The petitioner's contractual relationship is principal-to-principal, not agency. viii) The place of supply of the petitioner's services is the location of the recipient outside India.
Petition allowed in part.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2138
Cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration - Failure to file GST returns on time - petitioner is willing to file his GST returns and pay the entire tax liabilities along with applicable interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- In this case, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled by the first respondent vide the impugned order dated 17.7.2024. According to the petitioner, due to his ill-health during the period from March, 2025 to May, 2025 he was not in a position to meet his Auditor so as to instruct him to file returns on his behalf on time, however, since the returns were not filed, the GST Registration of the petitioner was cancelled by the first respondent vide the impugned order dated 17.02.2025. The reason provided for non-filing of returns, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to be genuine.
The petitioner is directed to file returns for the subject period till date, if not filed, together with tax dues along with interest thereon and the fee fixed for belated filing of returns within a period of 4 weeks from the date of restoration of GST Registration of the petitioner - The cancellation of registration is hereby revoked, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2084
Applicability of limitation period for filing the refund application - excess tax payments - ‘relevant date’ - scope of Explanation 2 (h) of Section 54 of CGST Act - effect of a conciliation agreement - Reduction of rent as per the settlement agreement subsequent to the payment of tax - HELD THAT:- When a dispute arose between the parties, a Conciliator was appointed who had then held various meetings. Finally, vide the minutes of the meeting dated 24th July, 2020, the terms were broadly agreed by the parties, which included a reduction of the lease amount by 40% and a reduction of maintenance charges as well. These minutes were approved by the Managing Director, DMRC on 8th September, 2020. Finally, on 9th October, 2020, the Conciliation Agreement was entered into between the parties.
It is relevant to note that under Section 89 of the CPC, the Arbitration & Conciliation Act applies to conciliation proceedings. The settlement agreement in this case is one which is therefore recognised under Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
As per the above provisions, the settlement agreement becomes binding and final between the parties upon them signing it. The status of such a settlement is set out in Section 74 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Thus, the conciliation agreement is like an arbitral award, which is in effect, equivalent to a decree of the Civil Court as per Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Therefore, the date of finalisation of the settlement agreement shall be the deemed date of communication of the judgment/decree under Section 54 explanation 2 (d) of the CGST Act.
In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that Section 54 explanation 2 (d) of the CGST Act would be the correct provision that would apply in this case as against explanation 2 (d) which is, clearly, a residual provision that is to be applied only when none of the other explanations are applicable.
Therefore, in the present case, the refund applications could be filed within two years from 03rd August, 2021 or even 09th October, 2020. The refund applications filed by DMRC are dated 17th January, 2021 and 21st March, 2021 and thus are well within time.
Thus, the impugned orders are set aside. Let the refund of the DMRC be processed along with applicable interest in accordance with the statute. The refund be credited to DMRC within one month.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2078
Challenge to orders passed u/s 130 of the GST Act - excess stock found - HELD THAT:- In S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar [2024 (8) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], 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.
For the reasons recorded in S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar, this writ petition also succeeds and is allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2077
Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of proper opportunity for personal hearing - SCN was improperly uploaded in the "additional notices and orders" - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgement this Court passed in M/s Ashish Traders [2024 (11) TMI 336 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], therefore, the present writ petition is decided in the same terms as enumerated in the case of M/s Ashish Traders.
The matter is remanded to the assessing authority, who shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2076
Violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of GST Act - violation of the principles of natural justice - Petitioner was unaware of the notice as the notice was uploaded on 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab - HELD THAT:- Section 75 deals with general provisions relating to determination of tax and sub-section (7) specifically stipulates that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice and no demand shall be confirmed on the grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice.
Admittedly, in the present case, the show-cause notice merely indicates the amount of Rs. 45,66,398/- as representing the tax, interest and penalty and the demand qua the three components has been raised at Rs. 68,07,953/-, which is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act.
So far as the plea pertaining to not providing any opportunity of personal hearing is concerned, once it is the case of the petitioner that it was unaware of the issuance of the show-cause notice, the fact that in the notice issued to the petitioner, the date of filing of reply was indicated, looses its significance and it cannot be said that on account of such indication, the notice, on its own, would stand vitiated.
On account of violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, the order impugned cannot be sustained - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2075
Imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) read with Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 - fake availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - grievance of the Petitioner is that despite this order dated 4th November, 2024, the RUDs were not supplied to the Petitioner and the same were furnished only on 14th May, 2025 - HELD THAT:- The contentions that the Petitioner wishes to raise can always be raised in appeal, in as much as this Court has already taken a view in Mukesh Kumar Garg vs. Union of India & Ors. [2025 (5) TMI 922 - DELHI HIGH COURT] 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, writ jurisdiction ought not to be ordinarily exercised in such cases.
The Petitioner has further confirmed that the RUDs have now been received on 14th May, 2025. Considering the nature of this matter which involves allegations of availment of fraudulent ITC, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Under such circumstances. The Petitioner is free to avail of its remedies under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. If the Petitioner wishes to file an appeal, it may do so by 15th July, 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit. Upon the said appeal being filed, it shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed as being barred by limitation.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2074
Violation of principles of natural justice - notices of hearing were not served upon the Petitioner and the impugned Order-in-Original has been passed without hearing the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the said status report, it is observed that a list of 73 cases has been attached which contains the details of other Show Cause Notices and orders issued by the State GST Authorities against the noticees of the SCN. Further, the status report reveals that the entire investigation pertaining to this matter started when high value transactions were noticed in respect of four firms.
In the case of Ramesh Wadhera v. Deputy Director (INT.) Directorate General of GST intelligence and others [2025 (2) TMI 247 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Court has clearly come to the conclusion that the Show Cause Notice does not deserve to be quashed. When the above order was passed, the Petitioner had an opportunity to seek a hearing in the Show Cause Notice from the Court itself, which the Petitioner did not do. The factum of non-service of notice in time of hearing was also not raised when the Court decided the matter on 29th January, 2025.
The nature of the allegations against the Petitioner are extremely serious. There are several co-noticees who have also been involved in illegal and fraudulent transactions. Any relief being granted to the Petitioner in exercise of writ jurisdiction, would in effect, give a premium to such firms who are involved in fraudulent availment of benefits under the GST Act.
In view of the recent decision of this Court in Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors. [2025 (5) TMI 922 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where similar grounds have been raised for challenge of the Show Cause Notice therein, this Court held that writ jurisdiction ought not to be exercised in such cases. The Court in the said decision, inter alia, observed that petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be liable to be entertained only in case of persons who come with clean hands and not in favour of the persons who present twisted facts or misrepresent the true and correct picture on record.
Under these circumstances, the Petitioner is relegated to the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act along with the requisite pre-deposit.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2073
Invocation of extended period of limitation - wrongful availment of ITC - the impugned order has been passed without bearing in mind the directions given by this Court - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Directions given by this Court in INFINITI RETAIL LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2024 (9) TMI 1008 - DELHI HIGH COURT] ought to have been complied with by the Adjudicating Authority both in letter and spirit. The manner in which the impugned order has been framed would show that it primarily relies on the SCN. The reply filed by the Petitioner has been summarised in the impugned order and the oral submissions made by the Chartered Accountant appearing for the tax payer i.e. Petitioner have also been set out. However, in the findings portion of the impugned order, the manner in which the said reply has been afforded due consideration by finalising the demand, is unclear.
The question however is whether the matter deserves to be remanded. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served in sending the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority as the reasons that were to be given by the said AA, have been spelt out – though not in a fully satisfactory manner.
In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order being an appealable order under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, various facts and documents would be required to be gone into to ascertain as to whether any of the demands are justified or not. The same would be beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction which this Court is presently exercising - the Petitioner is relegated to avail of its appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, in accordance with law.
The Appellate Authority would consider all the facts and determine whether the ITC is wrongly availed of and whether the Order-in-Original is liable to be interfered with. The Petitioner shall be bound by the said determination subject to any remedies it may avail of - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2072
Rejection of interest on the refund claim of the Petitioner - stand of Petitioner is that the deficiency memo was not issued within 15 days in terms of Rule 90 of Central Goods Services Tax Rules - Prescribed Period u/s 54 and u/s 56 from grant of interest - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the Petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of interest for delay caused due to the deficiency memo not having been issued within the stipulated period, i.e., between 4th/9th July, 2019 and 29th November, 2019. At the same time, the Petitioner also took about 74 days to respond to the deficiency memo i.e., between 29th November, 2019 and 11th February, 2020.
In view thereof, the interest would be liable to be paid for a period from 7th September, 2019 and 9th September, 2019 (i.e., 60 days from the date of refund applications) till 9th June, 2023 (i.e., date of sanction of refund). However, fromthis entire period, the number of days between 29th November, 2019 and 11th February, 2020 (i.e., 74 days), which was the period taken for responding to the deficiency memo by the Petitioner, shall be deducted.
The interest that shall be liable to be paid at the rate of 6% in the initial period between 7th September, 2019, to 4th April, 2022 (i.e., 60 days from the date of second refund application dated 4th February, 2022). However it is again made clear that the interest for the period of 74 days shall be deducted from this period. The interest for the subsequent period between 5th April, 2022 to 9th June, 2023 shall be 9% per annum.
Petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 2071
Challenge to assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 01.02.2025 - said proceedings did not contain a DIN number - HELD THAT:- The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2022 (8) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (C.B.I.C.), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid.
In view of the aforesaid judgment and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number in the order, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside.
This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 01.02.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh proceedings, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said order.
............
|
9911796707
