|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (5) TMI 1518
Defective show cause notice - Cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration - frozen the account - registration obtained by fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts - business of Contractor in MES - challenged the validity of impugned show cause notice and the orders of cancellation - HELD THAT:- Show cause notice states that "If you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex-parte on the basis of available records and on merits". However, the show cause notice does not even have the name, designation or office of the issuing authority who could be treated as the undersigned before whom the petitioner would have had to appear or the date and time stipulated.
There are no reasons mentioned in the order. The order is completely bereft of any reasoning, details or discussion and simply is a cryptic one line order that the effective date of cancellation is 24.07.2022. The order ex facie shows complete non application of mind and appears to be an autogenerated order.
Since the very foundation of the proceedings i.e. show cause notice, is defective, further proceedings thereon stand vitiated.
Thus, the impugned show cause notice dated 15.07.2022 and the orders of cancellation dated 02.08.2022 and 30.06.2023 and recovery notice dated 06.07.2023 are set aside. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
It would be, however, open to the respondents to take further action in accordance with law inter alia, cancellation of registration with retrospective effect and recovery of any tax dues. However, the same would be in accordance with law and pursuant to a proper Show Cause Notice being issued giving full details and an opportunity of personal hearing being given to the petitioner.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1517
Validity of Show cause notice issued under the CGST Act, 2017 - uploaded in statutory form GST DRC 01 - No opportunity of hearing - Application for rectification under Section 161 - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted factual position that the appellant did not respond to the show cause notice dated 8.9.2023 which has been uploaded in statutory form GST DRC 01 on 18.9.2023 as he did not file any reply within the time permitted, but had sent a reply dated 15.12.2024 but by then the order in original was passed by the authority on 14.12.2023. In the said order it has been recorded that in order to comply with the principles of natural justice opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellant but they did not attend the personal hearing nor submitted any reply to the show cause notice. Though the order in original is stated to be passed on 14.12.2023, the same has been uploaded in the portal only on 20.12.2023 which is evident from the screen shot of the GST User Dashboard annexed in pages 87 and 88 of the stay petition.
Therefore, by the time the order was uploaded the appellant’s reply dated 15.12.2023 was very much available with the assessing officer.
However, this appears to have been not taken into consideration.
Subsequently the appellant filed an application for rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 dated 12.7.2024.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that though in the order it is stated that reasons have been attached as annexure, the appellant was not communicated with the reasons and what was attached was the order in original alone.
Considering the above facts, which appear to be not in dispute, we find that the appellant did not have adequate opportunity to put forth the submissions before the authority.
Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the matter and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to take a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed in the writ petition is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order in original and the order rejecting the rectification application are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1516
Seizure of goods - drums of mentha oil and caustic soda found unaccounted - discrepancies found in stock - Jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act - tax evasion - Challenged the release order directing to deposit penalty and fine on a total estimated value of goods seized - HELD THAT:- Section 35 of the GST Act clearly provides that every registered persons are required to keep and maintain at the principal place of business true and correct account of things as specified in clauses (a) to (f). Sub-section (6) of section 35 of the GST Act contemplates that if the registered dealer fails to account for the goods in accordance with the provision of sub-section (1), the Proper Officer shall determine the amount of tax payable on such goods that are not accounted for by such person and the provision of sections 73/74 of the GST Act, as the case may be, shall mutatis mutandis apply for determination of such tax.
The GST Act is a complete Code in itself. A specific provision has been contemplated that if the goods are not recorded in the books of account, then the Proper Officer shall proceed as per the provision of sections 73/74 of the GST Act. Once the Act specifically contemplates that action to be taken, then the provision of section 130 of the GST Act cannot be pressed into service.
The issue in hand is not res integra.
This Court in M/s Vijay Trading Company [2024 (8) TMI 1039 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has categorically held that the proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act cannot be put to service in case excess stock is found at the time of survey. The said judgement of this Court has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 & Another Vs. M/s Vijay Trading Company [2025 (4) TMI 1644 - SC ORDER (LB)] Further, in M/s PP Polyplast Private Limited [2025 (5) TMI 1442 - SC ORDER] the Apex Court has held that the law is clear on the subject that the proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act cannot be put to service if excess stock is found at the time of survey.
Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned orders.
The writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1515
Entitlement to claim ITC by a registered dealer for goods that remained as closing stock and were not re-sold before the introduction of the GST regime - HELD THAT:- The case in hand, it is admitted by the opposite party that there was a closing stock as on 30.6.2020, which shows that the goods purchased by the opposite party, have not been re-sold. Input tax credit availed with the dealer was transferred under the GST Act in Form GST TRAN -1. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party realises that he cannot claim the input tax credit as available to him then he filed Form GST TRAN -2 reversing the same input tax. Section 13 of the VAT Act prescribes various modes of availment of input tax as input tax credit on fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein. Once the dealer admittedly on the date of introduction of GST with effect from 1.7.2017 has not sold the goods, the input tax available with it cannot be said as input tax credit on the purchase of said goods as admittedly same was not sold.
This Court in the case of S/S Janki Industries [2025 (3) TMI 1240 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has dealt with in detail the issue involve in the present case, therefore, the said judgement is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case.
Conclusion - The benefit of ITC under the UP VAT Act cannot be claimed for goods that remained unsold in closing stock at the time of transition to the GST regime. The introduction of the GST Act resulted in discontinuation of business under the VAT Act, terminating the entitlement to carry forward ITC.
Revision allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1514
Challenge to SCN and consequent demand order - challenge to N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limits for adjudication - HELD THAT:- This Court in Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others [2025 (3) TMI 1308 - DELHI HIGH COURT] under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter.
It is relevant to note that post 16th January 2024, the GST Department has effected changes in the portal to ensure that the Show Cause Notices become visible to parties - The SCN in the present case is dated 11th December, 2023, in terms of Neelgiri, the Petitioner has not had sufficient opportunity to file a reply or an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1513
Challenge to SCN and consequent demand order - challenge to N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limits for adjudication - HELD THAT:- This Court in Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others [2025 (3) TMI 1308 - DELHI HIGH COURT] under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter.
It is relevant to note that post 16th January 2024, the GST Department has effected changes in the portal to ensure that the Show Cause Notices become visible to parties - In the present case, the GST registration of the Petitioner is stated to have been surrendered since 1st February, 2022 hence the reply could not be filed - Considering the fact that the Petitioner did not have a proper opportunity to file a reply or to be heard, in the opinion of the Court, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1512
Validity of Show cause notice issued under section 73 without digital signature - Requirements of mandatary procedure for issuance of notices, certificates or orders as per Rule 26(3) of the (Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax) Rules, 2017 - challenging the validity of Form GST DRC-01A - HELD THAT:- Though, counsel for the respondents sought to sustain the same contending that Annexure-7 which is the impugned order contains the signature of the 5th respondent, we do not find any merit in the said contention for the reason that the preceding intimation being DRC-01A and the show cause notice under section 73 dt. 29.04.2023 do not bear the digital signature of the 5th respondent and, therefore, are vitiated. Consequently, Annexure-7 is also vitiated.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-7 and 8 are both set-aside but liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate proceeding afresh in a proper manner, give opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the intimation/show cause notice and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1511
Seeking grant of transit anticipatory bail - non-existent firm - summons issued under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 for the said GST inquiry - HELD THAT:- This Court does not find any merit in the application, as during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is not present in the Court to attend the hearing of this case and the application has been filed on the basis of the instructions given by the accused applicant.
Once, the applicant has claimed to be innocent, then the plea for pre-arrest bail ordinarily should be raised before the court where the jurisdiction lies. By now, it is settled law that the concession of transit anticipatory bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances where the denial of such a concession may result in prejudice to the accused-applicant. The limited concession cannot be granted in a routine manner and in this regard, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoriya Vs. State of Karnataka and others, [2023 (11) TMI 1286 - SUPREME COURT]
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1510
Challenge to SCN and impugned order - challenge to N/N. 09/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023 - HELD THAT:- The impugned notification was under consideration before this Court in a batch of matters with the lead matter being DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. [2025 (5) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT] In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notification and accordingly, held that 'Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage.'
Subsequently, this Court, having noted that the validity of the central notifications—Notification Nos. 56/2023-CT and 09/2023-CT—is presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. [2025 (1) TMI 299 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], had disposed of matters wherein challenge was limited to the central notifications, after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions, with a direction that such matters would remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, the same have been retained for consideration by this Court.
Further, on facts, it is noticed that the Show Cause Notice was duly replied to by the Petitioner on 20th February, 2024. Repeated personal hearings were granted to the Petitioner on 15th January, 2024 & 22nd February, 2024. The Petitioner had also attended second hearing based on which the impugned order has been passed on 10th March, 2024 - Considering these circumstances the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 10th March, 2024 does not warrant interference.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1509
Application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration - No iota of material - show cause notice uploaded on the GST portal without any further mode of communication - ex parte order - non speaking order - petitioner not exhausted the remedy of appeal under Section 107 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The ingredient of available records and on merits or not forthcoming in the order for cancellation of registration. It is to be noted in the order for cancellation of registration there is not even write up that the petitioner has failed to avail submission of his reply to the show cause notice and so also failed to appear in person on 11.12.2023. On this count, the order for cancellation of registration is dearth of material information and it is not a speaking order. It is to be noted that order for cancellation of registration is while invoking Section 29 of CGST Act, 2017 which is quasi judicial function exercised by the Superintendent, Patna Central. In such circumstances, he was bounden duty to follow the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors,[2010 (9) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT].
In the present case petitioner has not invoked remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017, obviously for the reasons that impugned show cause notice and cancellation of registration order is in violation of principle of natural justice. Under what circumstances Writ Court can by pass the statutory remedy of appeal by the concerned aggrieved person has been explained in detail in case of Godrej [2023 (2) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT] One of the principle is violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner need not exhaust remedy of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107.
It is to be noted that violation of principle of natural justice would go to the root of the matter. That apart, cancellation of registration has a civil consequences including violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. On this issue, the Hon'ble supreme Court insofar as blacklisting contractor for 10 years it was noticed that there would be a violation of Article 19(1)(g) insofar as taking away his right to participate in public contract.
Taking note of this principle, the petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned show cause notice and order dated 13.11.2023 and 15.12.2023. They are set aside while restoring the registration of the petitioner. The concerned authority is hereby directed to accept belated returns in the interest of revenue and proceed to complete the formalities on receipt of returns. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1508
Maintainability of Writ Petition in Presence of efficacious alternative remedy available - Imposition of penalty - Validity of e-way bill - transshipment due to vehicle breakdown - technical error in Portal - HELD THAT:- It is petitioner’s case that the e-way bill was due to expire on 20th February, 2025, however, prior to its expiry, the petitioner had duly extended the validity of the e- way bill.
At this stage, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner would submit that in the event, the petitioner prefers an appeal, appropriate direction should be issued on the appellate authority to consider the case of the petitioner on merits including but not limited to glitches as identified by the petitioner on the portal. Having regard to the submissions made by the petitioner, I am of the view that the appellate authority who is otherwise competent enough shall be obliged to consider all questions as raised by the petitioner and dispose of the appeal, if the same is filed in accordance with law.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal, I am of the view that there is no scope to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1507
Classification of supply - leasing or rental services - supply of hiring services of air conditioning system and fire extinguishing system - Rate of CGST and SGST - to be charged under SAC Code 997314 or not - composite supply or mixed supply - essential elements constituting a "transfer of the right to use goods," - HELD THAT:- The case IN RE: M/S. SUN KNOWLEDGE PRIVATE LIMITED [2024 (2) TMI 1059 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL], on similar issue has been pointed out by the respondent where the WBAAR has pronounced its ruling that supply on account of hiring of electrical equipment, sprinkler system comprising fire detectors for true ceiling, air conditioning system up to the floor Air Handling Unit with existing ducting and diffusers, DG set emergency power supply would attract tax @ 18%. No appeal appears to have been filed on this and it did not come before WBAAAR. A ruling in another case cannot be held to be binding precedent. Section 103 of the CGST Act, 2017 specifically stipulates that an Advance Ruling pronounced would be binding to that particular applicant who had sought it and the same cannot be a precedent and applied to others.
It is needless to mention that the entire issue depends on the various clauses of the agreement entered into between the concerned parties wherefrom the actual nature of use of the assets concerned is required to be ascertained, i.e. whether they remain to be goods or become a part of an immovable property, which is required to be examined in depth. Fact that respondent was already paying GST at the rate of 28% is also relevant here.
Thus, in light of the above, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the Authority for Advance Ruling, i.e. the WBAAR for fresh decision. The WBAAR will take into consideration all aspects of the matter and decide the case afresh.
Hence, without delving into the merit of the case, we set aside the Advance Ruling Order No. 18/WBAAR/24-25 dated 14.01.2025 issued by the WBAAR in the case of the appellant and remand the case to the WBAAR for fresh decision after considering all aspects of the matter.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1506
Classification of services - composite supply or Pure Services - scope of works executed/ proposed - contracts involving operation, maintenance, consultancy, and management services without supply of goods - exempted from payment of tax vide Serial number 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017–Central Tax (Rate) - HELD THAT:- We find from the produced documents that the two main questions raised in the application are based on fourteen work orders received by the applicant from the PHE Directorate. The rest of the three questions are basically follow ups of the first two questions. We have carefully examined all the relevant work orders in the reference frame of the questions raised by the applicant. It is also to be mentioned that all the works narrated in the Work Orders of the PHE Directorate are covered under Article 243G (vide Entry no. 11 of the Article) and Article 243W (vide Entry no. 5 of the Article) of the Constitution of India since the work orders are either related to the functions of JJM/ Jal Swapna Prakalpa or water quality management especially in drinking water sector, water conservation and various programmes of mass sensitization in respect of use and conservation of drinking water.
The Contract of Services for operation & maintenance, regular upkeep and updation of secure Server/Dashboard, water quality applications for data collection, alert generation system and engagement of consultant for coordination appears not to have any supply of goods involved in them. Also the work orders for operation of water testing laboratories (without any supply of goods), engagement of consultancy agency for setting up of District Project Management Unit and regular upkeep and management of FTK mobile application and web Interface of Water Quality Integrated to State Water Quality Dashboard and maintaining database fall in the same bracket. As such, these services can be regarded as Pure Services and qualify for exemption under serial no. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) Dated 28.06.2017.
The work orders for (i) Annual maintenance of Mobile Laboratory Van under Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance Programme, with supply of consumables for the testing of water samples, (ii) Regular preventive upkeep & calibration of On-site Mobile Analysis System (in short OMAS) installed in various laboratories with supply of spare parts, (iii) Supply & distribution of portable multi-parameter water quality testing device and facilitating block level training/orientation program on testing, awareness generation etc., (iiia) Supply and delivery of consumables for water quality monitoring through OMAS including packing and distribution to different laboratories and collection of sample testing as well as uploading of test result in State Water Quality Dashboard, (iv) Supply of Spare Parts including Calibration & regular upkeep of OMAS, (v) Conceptualization, design, implementation of community sensitization /mobilization activities using various mediums on JJM through Tableau, Bus Panel advertisement, organizing school level awareness programme, designing, printing & supply of IEC leaflets and design on JJM and (vi) On-site assessment with sample collection & testing of AIRPs, CWPPs & water ATM including supply & delivery of seven new OMAS with consumables for testing Arsenic, Iron, Manganese & residue Chlorine in addition to monitoring and processing the data for precise analysis and evaluation of the plants and upload the data to the State Water Quality Dashboard appear to be contracts for supply of both goods and services according to the work orders placed before this authority. Each of the supplies will come under the definition of Composite Supply as noted in para 4.5. It is to be noted that in all the above cases the composite supply includes supply of goods more than 25% in terms of value as per the relevant contracts.
So far as the work order related to Procurement of Mobile Laboratory Van (MLV) issued by the Executive Engineer, Jhargram Division, PHE Directorate is concerned, this appears to be supply of goods. The work order relates to supply of MLV complete with internal fabrication, refrigeration, exhaust system, air conditioning system, waste disposal system and fully equipped with chemicals, equipments etc. for on site testing, smart phone with preloaded water quality app synchronized with PHED water quality dashboard and safety gear for resource personnel including external designing and painting for IEC propaganda with IEC audio visual aids.
Thus it is evident that there is no supply of service involved in the above work order. It is a supply of goods i.e. supply of vehicle fitted with equipments and other fittings to serve a specific purpose.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1505
Liability for payment of GST on construction work for prospective clients - 99 years lease - applicable tax rate on the supply - Services by way of renting of residential dwelling - Exemption on accommodation services - ‘Accommodation Services’ (SAC: 9963) or Real Estate Services (SAC: 9972) - monthly/annual maintenance charges - term ‘sale’ - HELD THAT:- In this case, the applicant has already submitted that he intends to get the land from WBHIDCO on 99 years lease for the purpose of setting up of Hotel-cum Shopping and Multiplex under the principal use-Assembly-Mercantile Retail.
oreover, as per the Draft Lease Deed as per tender relating to this case, the lessee is not permitted to sub-lease land or part thereof. However, the applicant will be permitted to sublease/ assign right on constructed area. Moreover, Clause no. (xi) of the draft says lessee shall not sub-divide or sub-lease the demised land/ or any part thereof. However, the building constructed thereon or the structure constructed thereon / or any part thereof may be allowed for sub-leasing/sub-letting/assignment by the lessor i.e. WBHIDCO on result of specific proposal keeping the principal use unchanged and on payment of prescribed fees, if any.
Thus from the very contract itself, it is clear that there can be no occasion of any transfer of title or transfer of ownership of the land on which the constructed property will stand and that the said constructed property also can only undergo a sub-leasing or sub-letting or assignment of right. It is beyond any debate that sub-leasing or sub-letting or assignment of right does not involve any transfer of title or transfer of ownership and hence cannot be connected to the term ‘sale’.
Hence, the condition of “intended for sale to a buyer” according to the entries vide Sl. no. 3(ia), 3(ib), 3(id) and 3(if) of notification no. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by 03/2019 Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019, shall not be applicable in this case and the applicant shall not qualify for paying tax at a lower rate. The instant supply shall thus be guided by the entry vide Sl. no. 3(xii) of notification no. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by 03/2019 Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019.
In view of our discussion, we rule as under:
GST on construction work for prospective clients, regardless of whether one charges a lump sum or periodic payments is liable to be paid.
The applicable SAC (and not HSN Code) on this supply is 9954 (Construction Services) and the applicable tax rate on the supply under consideration shall be 18%.The applicant is eligible for a deduction as attributable to land portion i.e. 1/3 of consideration on the total value of supply for the purpose of payment of applicable tax.
It will not fall under Accommodation Service (SAC: 9963) and hence the question of exemption under entry in sl. No. 12 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 as asked for by the applicant does not arise.
GST is payable on monthly/annual maintenance charges as per entry in sl. no. 33 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017. The SAC Code (and not HSN code) in this case would be 9995 and the applicable GST rate is 18%.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1442
Initiation of proceedings u/s 130 of the GST Act or u/s 73/74 of the GST Act - excess stock is found at the time of survey - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment(s); hence, the present special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1441
Miscellaneous application seeking Direction to release/ provide the original copy of documents seized by the Respondent from the premises of the Petitioner during various searches conducted - department has lost the original document - HELD THAT:- We dispose of these miscellaneous application(s) with a direction that so far as File nos. 11, 12 and 13 respectively are concerned since the original have been lost, the department shall furnish certified copies of those three files keeping all other contentions available to both the sides open in that regard.
So far as original file Nos. 1-10 respectively are concerned the learned ASG very fairly submitted that the department is willing to hand over the same.
The assessee has to collect the same from the concerned department.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1440
Condonation of delay - Classification of service - execution of various turnkey contracts - Consulting Engineering Services or Works Contract Services - whether the appellant has transferred any property in the project to the project authority? - HELD THAT:- After condoning delay and hearing the learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant, upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Court found "no merit in the Appeal" and accordingly dismissed it.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1439
Cancellation of GST registration - No physical or offline notice served prior to the adjudication order - obligation to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued electronically - essential requirement of rules of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Since essential requirement of rules of natural justice has remained to be fulfilled, we set aside the order dated 13.06.2024 passed under Section 122 of the Act. The petitioner may treat the said order itself to be the notice and submit its final reply thereto within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to such compliance by the petitioner, fresh order may be passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months therefrom.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1438
Seeks to filing an appeal for availing the remedy under Section 107 - Validity of consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) u/s 74 or Consolidated Adjudicating Order for different financial year - Fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) - issuance of goods-less invoices - Compliance with procedural requirements for issuance of the SCN under the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- At this stage, liberty is sought by the Petitioner for filing an appeal as the limitation period for availing of the remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is also coming to an end.
Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to avail of the appellate remedy by 15th July, 2025, along with the necessary pre-deposit mandated under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, in which case the appeal shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
In so far as the issue pertaining to the issuance of consolidated show cause notice and orders-in-original for multiple financial years is concerned, the decision in Quest Infotech [2025 (5) TMI 1357 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which may be passed by this Court shall bind the Appellate proceedings as well if the Petitioner chooses to go in appeal.
The petition is disposed of in said terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1437
Validity of issuance of FORM GST DRC-01 and FORM GST DRC-02 - Non compliance of the statutory requirements and legal provisions for issuance of SCN - No computation of tax, interest, and penalty in the said SCN - fake firms floated by two persons - several persons involved in a maze of transactions - disciplinary proceedings against, the Chartered Accountant - seeking stay of the adjudication proceedings - HELD THAT:- The DRC-02 refers to the Show Cause notice for the purposes of computation. When there are a several persons involved in a maze of transactions, the fact that qua each of the noticees the exact amount is mentioned in the SCN is sufficient to inform the notice of the amount involved at the SCN stage. The adjudication being currently underway, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same especially considering the nature of the allegations against the Petitioners.
In writ jurisdiction, the Court cannot go into the veracity of the statements of the Petitioners which have been recorded by the Department and examine as to whether the same are true or false as the same would be a matter of adjudication. The scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited which this Court is not inclined to exercise in this matter.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
The proceedings in respect of the Show Cause notice shall proceed in accordance with law.
............
|
9911796707
