|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (5) TMI 1804
Challenge to order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act - opportunity of hearing not provided to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The order impugned itself shows that the same has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The manner of fixing the date is against the circular issued by the department itself - the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 is quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1733
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - No opportunity of hearing - violation of principle of natural justice - HELD THAT:- From bare perusal of section 107, it is quite vivid that alternative remedy is available to him under the law even otherwise the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again deprecated the practice of entertaining the writ petition when efficacious remedy is available under the Tax Law.
Considering this aspect of the matter, I am of the view that this writ petition is not entertainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the plea of violation of principle of natural justice or take any permissible plea available to him under the law while preferring the appeal if so advised.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1732
Seeking correction of factual and computation issues in the adjudicating order - Rectification application filed u/s 73 - beyond the time prescribed limitation - requisite pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners had filed a rectification application, seeking correction of factual and computation issues which came to be rejected by order dated 28th October, 2024 with a direction upon the petitioners to file an appeal and despite the petitioners filing the appeal therefrom, the same had been rejected and noting that the department is far more equipped to access the records of the case which are available on the portal, I am of the view that at the first instance the adjudicatory process must be completed before the departmental authorities prior to the petitioner approaching the appellate authority.
In view thereof, while setting aside the order dated 25th February, 2025 passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 28th October, 2024 passed by the proper officer, I remand the matter back to the proper officer being the respondent no. 2 for reconsideration of the petitioner’s rectification application.
The proper officer is directed to hear out such application preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order upon providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
Since this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and has not called for affidavits, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1731
Seeking grant of regular bail - pendency of trial under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - fake firms - fraudulent input tax credit - supply of goods - offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(c), 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(i) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the case of the complainant is mainly based upon the confession of the accused persons recorded in custody. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Union of India that the two accused are not at all connected with each other, though, through the common complaint, they are being prosecuted for commission of similar offences. Further, it is fairly stated by Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the Union of India that during investigation, no evidence has been collected, which would show that the applicants were actually managing the affairs of these fake firms. However, Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for Union of India stated that the investigation is still going on, as the details of the beneficiary firms is not yet complete.
Admittedly, the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate, which carry a maximum punishment of five years and after filing of the complaint, the prosecution is in the process of adducing pre-charge evidence. Thus, it is clear that the trial has not yet commenced and its conclusion would consume considerable time. The entire case of prosecution is either based upon the documentary evidence or confession of the accused, but in the considered opinion of this Court, the truthfulness of the confession of the accused or its evidentiary value would be tested during trial. That apart, the majority of the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses and at present, there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. Thus, keeping in view the nature of the offences and punishment provided for these offences as well as the period undergone by the applicants, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the applicants, as their further detention behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the bail applications are allowed and it is ordered that the applicants, namely, Gaurav and Chandan Sharma be released on regular bail in the above case, subject to their furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. Further, it is directed that the accused- applicants shall abide by the terms and conditions of bail, which shall be imposed by the trial court at the time of acceptance of their bail bonds and surety bonds.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1730
Cancellation of the GST Registration, retrospectively - ITC blocking - non-existent firm during physical verification - issuance of show cause notice - appealable order under Section 107 - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly an appealable order under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner’s stand that the application for revocation of GST Registration dated 11th March, 2025 was filed prior to the issuance of the show cause notice dated 2nd April, 2025 would not be correct, inasmuch as, the letter received from the Anti Evasion Commissionerate is dated 7th March, 2025 and it appears that the Petitioner may have obviously learnt of the said physical inspection and has thereafter applied for cancellation on 11th March, 2025.
Thus, this Court is of the opinion that this petition does not merit any interference of this Court and a challenge, if any, shall be taken up by the Petitioner before the appellate authority in appeal.
Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted time till 10th July, 2025, to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
If the appeal is filed by the Petitioner before 10th July, 2025, the same shall be adjudicated upon merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
It is also made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present petition shall have no bearing upon the decision of the appellate authority. All rights and remedies of both parties are left open.
At request, Respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner, Zone-5, State Goods and Service Tax Act, Department of Trade & Taxes, Delhi, is deleted from the array of parties.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1729
Levy and collection of GST - Show-cause notice issued under the provisions of Section 73 - demerger - provisions of Rule 108 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner upon receipt of the show-cause had duly responded to the show-cause by communication in writing dated October 13, 2023. The aforesaid show-cause ultimately culminated in the adjudication order under Section 73 (9) of the said Act dated December 15, 2023. Admittedly, the said order was passed in the name of Century Textiles and was not uploaded on the petitioner’s portal. This compelled the petitioner to file a manual appeal along with the pre-deposit as is required for maintaining the appeal. Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority by keeping its eyes shut to the practical difficulties faced by the petitioner and by ignoring the legal consequences of an order of demerger, inter alia, including the fact that the order impugned which forms subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Authority was not uploaded on the website of the petitioner, had proceeded to reject the appeal on the ground that the same had been filed manually de hors the provisions of Rule 108 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017 (“said Rules”).
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and noting that the petitioner was all along aware with regard to the developments as aforesaid and had participated in the proceedings, I am of the view that the matter be remanded back to the Appellate Authority, however, the appeal shall not be decided by the officer who had decided the same. To avoid all future complications, it is, however, directed that all orders passed in connection with the aforesaid appeal must be uploaded on the petitioner’s portal in the name of the petitioner.
It is made clear that the show-cause and the order in original should be treated as a show-cause and an order in original issued against the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 137 of 2025 is disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1728
Cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration - non-filing of GST returns - tax liability along with interest in the Electronic Cash Ledger - HELD THAT:- Considering the submissions that there is no other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent and considering the fact that the petitioner has already deposited the outstanding tax with interest as if the returns would have been filed, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is permitted to file returns, as prayed for by the respondent authority and if the same are in accordance with law and the petitioner is further directed to pay outstanding demand, if any raised by the respondent forthwith, then in that circumstances, the order of cancellation shall stands revoked.
The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1727
Refund of IGST on exported goods - Violation of the impugned Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules - 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) - benefit of Notification No.78/2017 by the Customs Department as well as the Notification No.79/2017 - HELD THAT:- The perusal of the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 clearly contain an inference drawn by the officer, without any indication in the previous notices issued to the petitioner about the amount of refund that has been claimed and it being subjected to interest and penalty at what rate. The officer has arrived at a conclusion on the basis of the bill entry submitted by the petitioner, that during the tax period of claim of refund he had taken the benefit of the Notification dated 13.10.2017 and therefore wrongfully claimed the refund of Rs. 6,88,11,571/- which is in contravention with Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Had the petitioner being issued a show cause notice as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 73, and determination of this show cause notice pursuant to the representation/stand adopted by the petitioner, all the issues pertaining to the applicability of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules 2017 would have been open for consideration by the concerned officer. However, since the impugned order has straight away drawn a conclusion that the petitioner had wrongly availed refund, which is liable to be recovered from it along with interest and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act 2017, in absence of adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2017 to be read along with Rules 2017, we are satisfied that the necessary procedure to be followed before the demand is raised and the recovery is ordered, has not been adhered with.
Ms Asha Desai, learned Senior Standing Counsel representing the Revenue does not dispute the factual aspect of the matter and she also does not dispute the legal position that if a statute prescribes a particular thing to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done only in that manner and in no other way.
In the wake of the aforesaid without touching into the other issues which are raised in the petition particularly the validity of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 as well as its applicability in the case of the petitioner and by keeping this issue open, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 by giving liberty to the Revenue to follow the procedure under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act of 2017, to be initiated by the issuance of show cause notice pursuant to which the petitioner shall be afforded with an opportunity to submit its representation, which shall be subjected to adjudication by the proper officer in accordance with law.
Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1726
Seeking cancellation of refund order in form GST RFD 01 - benefit of the refund credited to the petitioner no.1’s credit ledger - HELD THAT:- Considering the submission made on behalf of the respective parties and noting that the appellate authority had allowed the petitioner's appeal arising out of the refund/rejection order dated 11th February, 2022, by order dated 15th October, 2023 and the proper officer on the basis of the petitioner's subsequent application had allowed the refund by directing the same to be paid to the petitioner's bank account, however in the detailed order it appears that there is a direction to credit the refund amount to credit ledger of the petitioner no.1 which appears to be self- contradictory.
Having regard thereto, I direct the proper officer to reconsider the aforesaid direction in the light of the observation made herein.
The aforesaid order is passed on the basis that the petitioners have closed down its business operation and its registration under the said Act has already been cancelled and that there is no tax due and payable by the petitioners.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1725
Demand of tax, interest and penalty - credit note values and its ITC reversal were not reflected in GSTR-9 annual return - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, initially, the ASMT notice and the show cause notice were issued by the respondent on 11.05.2023 and 27.06.2023, for which, the detailed replies were filed by the petitioner on 10.08.2023 & 25.07.2023 respectively. Subsequently, the impugned assessment order came to be passed by the respondent on 29.04.2024 after affording the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. When such being the case, it is clear that the respondent has provided sufficient opportunities to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order and hence, no question would arise with regard to the violation of principle of natural justice.
Further, it was submitted that the petitioner is now willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Therefore, though this petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.08.2024, considering the submissions made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned assessment order.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
In such case, the Appellate Authority shall consider the said appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law, by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, without pressing for limitation.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1724
Cancellation of the GST registration - Show cause notice uploaded solely on the GST Portal without any other mode of communication - No opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT:- No doubt sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities.
Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act.
Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order with terms.
With the above observations & directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1723
Confiscation of the goods being transported in the vehicle - detention - non-production of Invoice and E-Way Bill - Form GST MOV-1 and Form GST MOV-2 - HELD THAT:- It was submitted that the respondent- Authorities have issued the Form GST MOV-1 and Form GST MOV-2 in month of June, 2022 i.e. after two months from the date of detention by the Police Officers of the goods being transported in the vehicle which was thereafter kept in GIDC, Matar, Kheda.
It was further submitted that provisions of Section 130 of the GST Act is invoked by the respondent-Authorities is not tenable in view of the fact that only reason given in the impugned order passed in Form GST MOV-11 is that Bill and E-Way Bill not produced which can only be considered under Section 129 of the GST Act. It was further submitted that the respondent-Authorities could not have invoked either the provisions of Section 129 of the GST Act as the goods were not in transit when Form GST MOV-1 was issued on 18.06.2022.
Thus, issue Notice, returnable on 7th May, 2025.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1722
Claim of rectification of errors in GST returns - Correction of double entries made in GSTR-1 and subsequent amendments in GSTR-3 and GSTR-1 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it appears that during the year 2018-19, while filing returns in GSTR-1 for the month of March 2019, the petitioner inadvertently/wrongly made double entries. According to the petitioner, he made correction while filing returns in GSTR-3 for the month of March 2019. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contented that while filing returns in GSTR-1 for the month of April 2019, again the said error was rectified. To substantiate this aspect of making amendment in GSTR-3 and GSTR-1 in the month of April, the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence before the respondent Authority, and only the tax liability comparison statement was enclosed.
The learned Additional Government Pleader contented that the tax liability comparison statement is not sufficient to substantiate the claim of the petitioner.
This Court is of the view that in the absence of material documentary evidence, the respondent Authority has passed the impugned orders, and hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondent.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to depositing additional 5% of the disputed tax over and above the statutory deposit of 10% of the disputed tax for filing an appeal. Upon production of the payment of 15% of the disputed tax in respect of the impugned assessment period, the Appellate Authority is directed to take up the Appeal on its file and shall decide and dispose of the same on its merits and in accordance with law.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1684
Condonation of delay - Review petition - Error apparent on the record - Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Constitutional validity of clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Interpretation of the expression "plant or machinery" in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned.
We have gone through the review petition and perused the Judgment and Order dated 03 October 2024 which has been sought to be reviewed.
There is no error apparent on the record.
Review Petition is dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1683
No opportunity of cross-examination during assessment proceedings - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel fairly submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court was actually invited by his client, however, later he realised that in view of the provisions of Section 107(11) of the CGST Act the appellate authority has no power to remand the matter.
We do not want to say anything in this regard. We permit the petitioners to go back to the High Court and point this aspect out. Let the High Court deal with this situation and pass an appropriate order.
This petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1682
Implications of the SCNs being visible under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab on the GST portal, rather than the "Notices" tab - not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner - No opportunity of personal hearing - absence of a reply on behalf of the Petitioner - Violation of Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made to the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN was issued on 2nd November, 2020 and the same was not brought to the notice of the Petitioner. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN having been filed by the Petitioner, following the decision of this Court in Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) [2025 (3) TMI 1308 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July 2025, to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner.
The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly.
Access to the GST Portal, if not already available, shall be ensured to be provided to the Petitioner to enable filing of reply as also access to the notices and related documents.
Petition is disposed of in these terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1681
Duplication of the demand - Issuance of two Show Cause Notices - recovery of Input Tax Credit - erroneous total demand figure - HELD THAT:- Both the Orders-in-Original shall be re-considered only qua the Petitioner by the Adjudicating Authority for correction of these errors. Before correcting the same, a personal hearing shall be afforded and the notice shall be sent at the following email address and mobile no.
After hearing the Petitioner, within thirty days, the corrected order shall be communicated to the Petitioner. Upon the corrected order being communicated, the Petitioner shall be free to avail of his remedies in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of in these terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1680
Seeking release of the goods and quantification of the tax and penalty - Seizure of a consignment of areca nuts - No proper documentation - presupposes issuance of a Show Cause Notice - challenging the impugned communication/order - HELD THAT:-Clearly, the search itself took place on 1st May, 2025 in the godowns of the Petitioner in Delhi and the letter dated 2nd May, 2025 was written by the Petitioner where a clear undertaking was given that the Petitioner was willing to deposit the tax and penalty in response to which the computation was done. The Petitioner appears to have had a change of mind and now does not wish to deposit the amount.
Thus, it is clarified that the impugned communication dated 6th May, 2025 would only be treated as a response to the letter dated 2nd May, 2025 and not an adjudication order.
The Petitioner at this stage prays for provisional release of the goods subject to furnishing a bank guarantee. This Court is not inclined to consider the said prayer in this writ petition as the same can be raised with the concerned authorities as well.
Let the GST Department proceed to issue a Show Cause Notice in accordance with law. If the Petitioner moves an application for provisional release the same be considered by the concerned Adjudicating Authority as well.
The petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1679
SCN uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ of the portal - Extension of time limit of issuance of SCN u/s 73 / 74 - Validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax - procedural requirements under Section 168A of the GST Act - Challenging the SCN and impugned order - HELD THAT:- This rectification application was decided on 11th November, 2024 and the same has been rejected. A copy of the application for rectification, as also the order pertaining to the said application is handed over to the Court. Let the same be taken on record.
Accordingly, this rectification application was decided on 11th November, 2024 and the same has been rejected. A copy of the application for rectification, as also the order pertaining to the said application is handed over to the Court. Let the same be taken on record.
Thus, this Court is of the view that if there was some reasoning given in the rectification application dated 18th September, 2024, filed by the Petitioner, the Court may have been inclined to consider the same and remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
However, considering the fact that the Respondent-Department has taken all steps in the matter that were required to be taken i.e., issuing of the SCN on the GST Portal, issuing the reminders on the GST Portal, uploading the impugned order on the GST Portal, considering the rectification application filed by the Petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no fault on part of the Respondent-Department. The petitioner ought to have been more careful and diligent in filing a proper reply or application for rectification under these circumstances.
Thus, this Court is of the opinion that this petition does not merit any interference of this Court and a challenge, if any, ought to be taken up by the Petitioner before the appellate authority in appeal.
Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted time till 10th July, 2025, to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notification is left open. Any order passed by the appellate authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors [2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER] and of this Court in Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors. [2025 (5) TMI 1108 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
-
2025 (5) TMI 1678
SCN not uploaded on the GST Portal - Allegations of availment of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) - challenging the the impugned order passed without notice for personal hearing - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order would show that personal hearing notices have in fact been issued and some of the parties have also appeared. Considering the Petitioner did not even disclose the receipt of the SCN and has concealed the same from this Court, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition seeking exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Moreover, the case involves allegations of availment of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’) where several parties in collusion with each other have enabled false availment of ITC by various entities, namely, M/s S R Impex, M/s S R International, M/s R K Enterprises, M/s Vikas Impacts, M/s SK Traders, totalling to more than 100 crores.
Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order, being an appealable order, the Petitioner shall approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
The Petitioner is permitted to file the appeal by 15th July, 2025.
Petition is disposed of in these terms.
............
|
9911796707
