|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 11456 Records
-
2024 (3) TMI 903 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Breach of principles of natural justice - Validity of assessment order - mismatch between the GSTR 3B returns filed by the petitioner and the auto-populated GSTR 2A returns - HELD THAT:- The documents on record disclose that the liability pertains to alleged mismatch between the GSTR 3B returns of the petitioner and the auto-populated GSTR 2A returns. In recognition of difficulties faced in this regard, Circular No.183 was issued. The petitioner has also placed on record a certificate from the Chartered Accountant with regard to the reason for disparity between the above mentioned returns. Although the petitioner did not respond to the notices and participate in the assessment proceedings, the above facts and circumstances justify interference with the impugned orders, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned assessment orders are quashed and all these matters are remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 902 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of Assessment / Demand Order - tax liability with interest and penalty - turnover on Pan-India basis - Services of transportation of goods - Notification No.13/2017 - GST is leviable on the recipient of services on reverse charge basis - non application of mind - HELD THAT:- Although the petitioner had submitted the balance sheet and ITR details, it is evident from the records, assessing officer recorded findings contrary to the documents on record. It is also noticeable that in the penultimate paragraph at page 63, the assessing officer notices that the all India balance sheet discloses other income of Rs. 20,05,359/-. After noticing such other income, in the concluding table, tax liability with interest and penalty is imposed in respect of the turnover which, according to the petitioner, is taxable entirely on RCM basis.
Thus, the impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner is permitted to re-submit all relevant documents to the assessing officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
W.P. is disposed of on the above terms.
-
2024 (3) TMI 901 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - SCN does not give any reasons for cancellation - Appeal of the Petitioner seeking restoration of the GST registration has been dismissed solely on the ground that the same is barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- 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 19.04.2022 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 900 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - Defective SCN proposing to cancel the GST registration - SCN does not mention the name and designation of the concerned officer who has issued the same - SCN has not been signed by the proper officer but bears the digital signatures of Goods and Service Tax Network - HELD THAT:- A perusal of show cause notice dated 19.02.2024 shows that the same has been issued on the ground that registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppressing of facts. The notice is unclear as to which of the ground applies i.e. fraud, willful misstatement or suppressing of facts. The notice neither bears the name and designation nor the signatures of the issuing authority - As per the petitioner, notice was signed by the Goods and Services Tax Network. Further, we note that the notice states that the noticee is to refer to supporting documents attached to have case specific details, however, admittedly, no such documents were attached with the notice.
Rule 21A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, requires that the person who is alleged to be in contravention shall be intimated in Form GST REG 31 electronically on the common portal or by sending the communication to the e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time - Form GST REG 31 admittedly has not been uploaded on the portal or sent electronically over e-mail to the petitioner but is stated to have been sent to the petitioner by physical mail, which cannot be a mode of service, as prescribed under Rule 21A. In any event, Form that has been produced in Court today, is not the show cause notice, which was sent to the petitioner.
In view of the above impugned show cause notice dated 19.02.2024 as well as Form GST REG 31 also dated 19.02.2024 are set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 899 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Demand - interest - lower Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Petitioner was unaware of proceedings commencing from the issuance of an intimation - show cause notice served on the petitioner by post and not merely uploaded on the GST portal - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the petitioner availed of a lower amount as ITC than the amount reflected in the auto-populated GSTR 2A return. In those circumstances, the conclusion that the petitioner wrongly availed of ITC indicates non application of mind. As regards the interest liability for belated filing of returns, the evidence on record reflects that the petitioner remitted sums of Rs. 3,97,353/- each towards CGST and SGST on 06.03.2024. In these circumstances, the impugned order calls for interference.
Therefore, the impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the assessing officer for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 24.07.2023 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
These writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 898 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - closure of business - SCN does not give any tenable reasons of cancellation - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- 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.
In view of the fact that Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 16.05.2023 i.e., the date when the Petitioner closed down his business activities. 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 897 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Seeking refund of the amount deposited as penalty - intent to evade tax or not - Challenged the physical inspection and verification report - Penalty - detention on the ground that address of the consigner not found during the inspection carried out at his place of business - HELD THAT:- It is well settled principle of law that in order to invoke proceedings u/s 129(3) of the Act, the intention to evade tax is mandatory. In this context, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors. v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Limited & Anr. [2022 (1) TMI 954 - SC ORDER] is relevant. The same view has been taken by different High Courts. It is also noted that under Rule 138A of the CGST Act, 2017, the person in charge of the conveyance shall carry (a) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan and (b) a copy of the e-way bill or the e-way bill number. In this case, the petitioner was carrying all the requisite documents as required in law at the time of carrying the goods.
It is the case of the petitioner that the seller has already made payments towards his tax liability. Hence, there is no question of any evasion of tax liability. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that no special purpose will be served by delegating the present matter to the appellate authority. In view thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present writ petition and set aside the impugned physical inspection and verification report dated 21.12.2023, detention order dated 23.12.2023, penalty order dated 25.12.2023 and all other purported proceedings initiated therein.
Thus, the writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (3) TMI 896 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking revocation of provisional attachment of the Petitioner’s bank account - only contention urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that there was no reason to believe nor was there any tangible material for the Commissioner to confirm the provisional attachment of the Petitioner’s bank account in exercise of the powers under Section 83 of the the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- There was substantial material for the Commissioner to form an opinion that the interest of the Revenue is required to be protected. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not contended that such material was not tangible material to form the opinion to attach the Petitioner’s bank account nor such a case is made out in the application filed by the Petitioner for revocation of the provisional attachment. Thus, merely relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. [2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT], would not suffice, in the absence of material available for the Petitioner to confront the department against an action under Section 83 of the CGST Act.
The Petitioner having failed to even make out a prima-facie case against the provisional attachment, it is difficult for us to be persuaded to take a different view in the matter. In any event, it is brought to notice by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that now a Show Cause Notice dated 29th February 2024, under the provisions of Sections 74(1) and 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 as also the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017 read with IGST Act, 2017 has been issued to the Petitioner - SCN has abundant material which has been gathered by the department in the investigation in making a tax demand of Rs. 3.63 crores against the Petitioner, along with the recovery of other amounts as set out in paragraph 40 of the Show Cause Notice.
There are no merit in this Petition. It is accordingly rejected.
-
2024 (3) TMI 895 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Breach of principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction - Excessive tax demand as a condition for remand - time lag of about two months between the show cause notice and the assessment order - Petitioner not participate in proceedings and contest the tax demand - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned assessment order, it is noticeable that the assessing officer has taken into consideration the closing balance of creditors on all India basis. Similarly, based on the profit and loss account of the petitioner, the total revenue and expenditure of the corporate entity were made the basis for imposing GST. These conclusions clearly reflect non-application of mind. At the same time, it should be recognized that an intimation and show cause notice preceded the assessment order. There is also a time lag of about two months between the show cause notice and the assessment order. Therefore, it follows that the petitioner was negligent in not responding to the show cause notice and participating in proceedings.
Petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to remit a reasonable portion of the impugned tax demand as a condition for remand. However, he points out that 10% of the total disputed tax demand would be excessive in as much as this includes the all India turn over.
Therefore, the impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 5% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand - Petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with 5% of the disputed tax demand.
Thus, petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (3) TMI 894 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Attachment of Bank Account - Orders passed u/s 83(1) of the CGST Act - Period of limitation - repeated issuance of provisionally attachment order - cash credit accounts - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that repeated attachment of cash credit accounts in exercise of power u/s 83 of the CGST Act is in breach of the provisions of Section 83(2) and such exercise could not have been undertaken. He further submits that petitioners have not received copies of attachment order dated 13.12.2023.
Admittedly, subject matter of these proceedings has ceased to operate, the petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to impugn the fresh attachment order dated 13.12.2023 in accordance with law. The question of validity of repeated issuance of attachment orders u/s 83 of the CGST Act is left open.
-
2024 (3) TMI 893 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration - rejection of appeal filled u/s 107 - barred by limitation and beyond the condonable statutory period - Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘APGST Act’) - HELD THAT:- The impugned order in view of Section 107 of APGST Act does not suffer from any illegality, as the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond statutory condonable period but considering that there was sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time, the interest of justice requires condonation of the delay and adjudication of the matter on merit by Appellate Authority. The appeal is a valuable statutory right. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction to do complete justice and provide opportunity of hearing on merits of the appeal, we condone the delay by imposing costs of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously.
The Writ Petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
-
2024 (3) TMI 892 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration certificates - Show cause notice issued - Non-furnishing of returns in compliance of the provisions of Section 29[2][c] of the GST Act, 2017 - works contracts - seeking revocation of cancellation of restoration of his GST registration - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled u/s 29[2][c] of the CGST Act, 2017 for the reason that the petitioner did not submit returns for a period of 6 [six] months and more; the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule [4] of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the orders passed by the coordinate benches of this Court as well as by this Court in similar matters whereby the matters have been disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to revoke the cancellation of registration upon due payment of all statutory dues payable by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that no purpose will be served by keeping this writ petition pending and the present writ petition can be disposed of in similar terms, as had been passed in similar writ petitions
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 is hereby interfered with and set aside. The petitioner is directed to approach the concerned authority within a period of 1 [one] month from today, seeking revocation of cancellation of restoration of his GST registration. On such approach by the petitioner, the concerned authority will intimate the petitioner the total outstanding statutory dues, if any, standing in the name of the petitioner till the date of cancellation of registration and any other outstanding dues under the GST required to be paid by the petitioner. Upon such intimation, the same shall be deposited within the time limit mentioned by the concern authority and upon such payment of the statutory dues under the GST by the petitioner, the concerned authority will pass appropriate order and revoke the cancellation of registration, by restoring the GST registration of the petitioner.
Thus, the writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (3) TMI 891 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
Challenged the Ruling pronounced by AAR - Support Services in the State of Rajasthan - Classification of Services - under heading 9986 Or 9954 - Rate GST - EPC Contract entered with M/s Vedanta Limited - Nature of activities as per the EPC Contract - whether the appeal has been filed within stipulated period prescribed u/s 100 (2) of CGST Act, 2017 or not - Whether the alternate suggestion of the Appellant seeking classification of the proposed supplies in question under Heading 9983 is acceptable in view of the nature of supplies proposed to be made by them?
HELD THAT:- We find that the Appellant have not filed the appeal within statutory period of 30 days of date of communication of the Order of the AAR. However, the Appellant vide letter dated 20.09.2023 submitted that the appeal has been filed within limitation period in pursuance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER].
Thus, the appellant were required to file the appeal within 30 days from 21.09.2021 in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER] We note that the appellant has filed the appeal on 29.10.2021 that is within the prescribed time limit. We find that the appeal has been filed by the appellant within the prescribed time. Therefore, we proceed further to decide the appeal on merit.
We observe that according to the EPC Contract, the Appellant have been assigned the work of construction and installation of the entire facility and the proposed infrastructure being installed is aimed at capacity expansion as has been mentioned by the Appellant in the appeal that the with a view to augment the production from existing well pads at Mangala, the Appellant have entered into EPC contract with Vedanta Limited in March 2018 for constructing additional network of customized Intra-field pipelines MIPA project. The contract obliges the Appellant to handover the complete system including Non Process Buildings, road, drains, Pipeline, after completing the construction, erection, installation and commissioning work. Thus, we observe that the supplies proposed to be undertaken by the Appellant relate to the new facilities being awarded by M/s Vedanta Limited for enhancement of capacity and production. Therefore, the existing production from the existing facilities cannot be taken to be related to the expansion being undertaken under the instant EPC Contract.
As can be seen the contract in the instant case is an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contract awarded by Mls Vedanta Limited for provision of services for augmentation of pipelines along with Surface Facilities at MPT within RJ-ON-90/1 block and the Appellant have been assigned the responsibility to develop the infrastructure for surface facilities. The scope of the work described in details in the contract clearly established that the supplies relate to construction of new facilities/ infrastructure for oil gas extraction which are quite distinct from the support services to oil and gas extraction. What has been included in the support services under Heading 998621 by way of inclusion clause has to be viewed with reference to support services and cannot be so interpreted to relate it to construction services.
In that view of the matter, whether it be derrick erection or repair and dismantling services, well casing, cementing pumping, plugging and abandoning of well, all these activities have to be understood in the nature of support services only and none of them relates to creation of infrastructure or facilities for oil and gas extraction by way of construction, erection and commissioning of the new facility. The Appellant have not been assigned activity of type mentioned in Heading 998621 rather the contract is for enhancement of new facility and infrastructure for extraction of oil and gas. Hence, we do not find force in the arguments advanced by the Appellant.
Conclusion and findings: In view of these observations we hold that:-
(i) Based on the analysis of activities, the Appellant are required to carry out in pursuance of the EPC Contract and keeping in view the true nature of supplies proposed to be undertaken by the Appellant, the proposed supplies are appropriately classifiable under SAC Heading No. 9954 answering to description ‘Construction Services’ which are in the nature of composite supply defined as works contract.
(ii) The proposed supplies are specifically covered by SAC Heading No. 9954 and the claim that ‘Construction Services’ of SAC Heading No. 9954 is a general description of the supplies and ‘support services’ of SAC Heading No. 998621 is more specific to describe the proposed supplies is not supported by the EPC Contract as discussed.
(iii) The proposed supply is covered by the scope of ‘Construction Services’ of SAC Heading No. 9954 and neither the inclusions given under SAC Heading No. 998621 for Support Services nor the description of Heading 9983 covers the scope of the proposed supply, Hence, the claim for classification under SAC Heading No. 998621 or alternatively under Heading 9983 is not sustainable.
(iv) The proposed supplies, therefore, attract tax at the rate of 9% in terms of item (xii) of entry at SI. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (R), dated 28.06.2017 as amended and 9 % in terms of Notification issued under the RGST Act, 2017.
Thus, we hold that the Ruling dated 15.09.2021 of the AAR for Rajasthan in respect of the Appellant needs no interference up to the extent mentioned in item (i) to (iii) above and the same are hereby modified to the extent mentioned in item (iv) above of Part K of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2024 (3) TMI 836 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of show cause notice (SCN) - Supply of Relied Upon Documents (RUD) - Supply of inter-departmental communications or records/file notings or data/information - Challenge to SCN on the grounds that such notice was issued under the provisions, which were unconstitutional according to the petitioners - HELD THAT:- The petitioners did file the application before the Adjudicating Authorities for information and documents and it is not as if such information and documents were not furnished to the petitioners. All the documents or information may not have been supplied, but that was mainly because the petitioners avoided the specifics and even refused to explain the relevancy. All this has to be considered in the light of a clear and categorical submission/statement that the impugned show cause notices are to be disposed of based upon the RUDs and the non-RUDs already furnished to the petitioners.
In T. Takano [2022 (2) TMI 907 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon by the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it could not be oblivious to the wide range of sensitive information that the investigation report submitted under Regulation 9 of the SEBI Regulations may cover, ranging from information on financial transactions and on other entities in the securities market, which might affect third-party rights. The Court held that the report may contain market sensitive information which may impinge upon the interest of investors and the stability of the securities marker. Therefore, the Court held that the requirement of compliance with the principles of natural justice cannot therefore be read to encompass the right to a roving disclosure on matters unconnected or regards the dealings of third parties. The investigating authority may acquire information of a sensitive nature bearing upon the orderly functioning of the securities market. The right of the noticee to disclosure must be balanced with a need to preserve any other third-party rights that may be affected.
In T. Takano, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon Natwar Singh [2010 (10) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was observed that there are exceptions to the general rule of disclosing evidentiary material. The Court held that such exceptions can be invoked if the disclosure of material causes harm to others, is injurious to public health or breaches confidentiality. The Court held that while identifying the purpose of disclosure one of the crucial objectives of the right to disclosure is securing the transparency of instructions. The claims of third-party rights vis-a-vis the right to disclosure cannot be pitted as an issue of public interest and fair adjudication.
T. Takano provides that a quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication. A mere ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied on certain material would not exempt it from its liability to disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a nexus to the action taken by the authority. Thus, the actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for the purpose of adjudication. If so, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure.
On conclusion of investigation proceedings, the investigation team indeed prepared investigation report, and further it is on acceptance of the same by the competent authority that the show cause notices were issued, then subject to exceptions being made out by the respondents, copy of such investigation report should be furnished to the petitioners. If such an investigation report contains sensitive information regarding the identity of the sources or regarding third parties and unrelated transactions, respondents can always furnish such investigation reports to the petitioners by redacting such portions and such information.
Thus, no directions are called for in the context of inter-departmental communications or records/file notings or data/information shared with ISI. Records show that respondents have furnished all the documents relied upon in the show cause notices and even allowed the petitioners' inspection based upon which they retrieved the Non-Relied Upon Documents. The show cause notice is detailed and refers to the material/documents based upon which it is issued. All this, coupled with the statement/submission that the show cause notices would be disposed of by reference to the documents furnished to the petitioners, suggests sufficient transparency and fairness.
The petitioners must join the adjudication process and not delay the same. This clarification is necessary because Ms Desai, at the stage of admitting these petitions, has made a statement that final orders will not be made without the leave of this Court.
All these civil applications are disposed of.
-
2024 (3) TMI 835 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - appealable order u/s 107 of the Goods and Service Tax, 2017 - petitions have been dismissed by this Court on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- In Hameed Kunju vs. Nizam [2017 (7) TMI 1414 - SUPREME COURT] the Apex Court held that any petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine when there is statutory provision of appeal. In another case ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [2016 (3) TMI 1435 - SUPREME COURT] it is held that when there statutory appeal is provided, then the said remedy has to be availed.
Looking to the fact of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, it is not found proper to entertain this petition. Petitioner would be at liberty to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 834 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Attachment of Bank Account - Orders passed u/s 83(1) of the CGST Act - Period of limitation - repeated issuance of provisionally attachment order - cash credit accounts - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that repeated attachment of cash credit accounts in exercise of power u/s 83 of the CGST Act is in breach of the provisions of Section 83(2) and such exercise could not have been undertaken. He further submits that petitioners have not received copies of attachment order dated 13.12.2023.
Admittedly, the order subject matter of these proceedings has ceased to operate, the petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to impugn the fresh attachment order dated 13.12.2023 in accordance with law. The question of validity of repeated issuance of attachment orders u/s 83 of the CGST Act is left open.
All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.
-
2024 (3) TMI 833 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of CGST registration - defective Show Cause Notice - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia submits that since there were no details of the alleged invoices or bills which were made without supply of goods or services provided the petitioner was precluded from filing a reply to the Show Cause Notice.
Thus, order dated 23.12.2021 is set aside. Respondents are directed to furnish all material that they possess in support of the Show Cause Notice dated 05.11.2021 to the petitioner within one week. Petitioner shall file a reply within a period of seven working days thereof. Respondents shall thereafter adjudicate the Show Cause Notice in accordance with law within a maximum period of two weeks of filing of the reply.
It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor committed on the merits of contentions of either party. Proper Officer shall adjudicate the Show Cause Notice uninfluenced by anything stated in this order on merits. He shall pass a detailed speaking order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms
-
2024 (3) TMI 832 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Manner of making Pre-deposit before filing an Appeal - Utilization of Input Tax Credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger - whether the appellant, to comply with the requirement of sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act of paying a sum equal to 10% of the amount of tax in dispute arising out of the impugned order, can pay the amount utilizing the credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger? - HELD THAT:- The aforesaid question is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Oasis Realty [2022 (10) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], having considered the relevant provisions, held CBIT&C has itself clarified that any amount towards output tax payable, as a consequence of any proceeding instituted under the provisions of GST Laws, can be paid by utilisation of the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger of a registered person. The CBIT&C has also requested that suitable trade notices be issued to publicize the contents of the circular.
Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Oasis Realty as well as the circular dated 6th July 2022 issued by the GST Policy Wing, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, it has been clarified that the payment of pre-deposit can be made by utilizing the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL).
The petitioner may utilize the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger to pay the 10% of Tax in dispute as prescribed under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned order-inappeal No.CR/ADC/APL/147/2022 dated 25th July 2022 passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal is restored to file on the undertaking of the petitioner that it shall debit the Electronic Credit Ledger within two weeks of this order getting uploaded towards this 10% payable under Section 107(6) (b), if not already debited, is accepted.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 788 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dismissal of contempt petition - appellant submits that the contempt bench has dismissed the contempt petition being not maintainable by observing that there is no provision under the G.S.T. Act for deciding the representation - HELD THAT:- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, independent of observation made by contempt bench that there is no provision under the Act, 2017 for deciding the representation, we find that the representation of the petitioner in terms of Writ Court's order dated 4.8.2023 stand decided by the competent authority by passing the order dated 21.9.2023 and, therefore, on the face of it, no contempt is made out as the remedy before the petitioner is to challenge the said order in accordance with law.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 787 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Extension of time to file appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 till January 31, 2024 - it is submitted that this notification only deals with the orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act and does not take into account the orders passed under Sections 129 and 130 of the Act - HELD THAT:- This Court is not in a position to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to include Sections 129 and 130 of the Act in the said notification. However, the Government can very well consider adding these two Sections in the said notification, so that the benefit that has been provided for the orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act can be extended to Sections 129 and 130 of the Act.
The GST council and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance, is directed to look into this aspect of the matter at the earliest.
The matter is adjourned sine die with liberty granted to the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to mention the same at the appropriate time.
............
|
