|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (5) TMI 1436
Seeking release of refund claim along with applicable interest - Unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) - freight forwarding services to various clients in India and abroad - Procedural requirement for Withholding of Refund under Section 54(11) by the Commissioner - HELD THAT:- The position under Section 54 (11) of the CGST Act, 2017 has been recently considered by this Court in Shalender Kumar v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Ors. [2025 (4) TMI 555 - DELHI HIGH COURT], held that In the absence of an appeal or any other proceeding pending, challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the opinion under Section 54 (11) cannot result in holding back the refund.
Following the above settled legal position, under Section 54 (11) that the opinion of the Department cannot be relied upon on a stand-alone basis, without any challenge to the order by the Appellate Authority, it is directed that the refund amount be released in favour of the Petitioner along with statutory interest.
If, however, any appeal is filed challenging the Appellate authority's order by the department, then the processing of refund in terms of this order, shall be subject to the decision in the appeal.
The petition is disposed of in these terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1435
Demand of tax along with penalty and interest - petitioner unaware of issuance of notice u/s 74 -determination of tax - violation of statutory mandate under Section 75(7) - Challenged the impugned order - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the present case, the show-cause notice merely indicates the amount of Rs. 66,13,874.78 as representing the tax and penalty along with interest @ 18% p.a. and the demand qua the three components has been raised at Rs. 1,34,94,294/-, even if the notice qua interest amount is taken in compliance of the provisions, the amount of penalty and interest thereon is beyond the show cause notice, which is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act.
Thus, on account of violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, the order impugned cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure-4) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1434
Requirement for Payment of pre-deposit as per Section 112 (8) of the CGST Act - Obligation to file undertaking/declaration with the proper jurisdictional officer as per Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST - Validity of the impugned orders dated 29.04.2023 and 31.07.2024 - HELD THAT:- Upon advance notice, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, New Delhi, has issued Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST dated 11.07.2024, as per which, the petitioner is required to make the payment of the amount of pre-deposit as per Section 112 (8) of the CGST Act and file an undertaking/declaration with the proper jurisdictional officer that he will file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, as and when it is constituted for challenging the impugned order dated 31.07.2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to file an undertaking/declaration with the proper jurisdictional officer, in terms of the above referred to circular dated 11.07.2024.
Thus, present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file to file an undertaking/declaration with the proper jurisdictional officer, as per requirement of above referred to circular dated 11.07.2024.
Disposed of accordingly.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1433
Demand for tax under the heading of SGST and CGST - Application to rectify GSTR 3B on par with the figure mentioned in GSTR-1 - error in filling up of total taxable value while submitting GSTR 3B - claim refund - HELD THAT:- The same was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineers (I) Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors [2023 (12) TMI 729 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
In the present case also it is error committed by the petitioner insofar as filling up of certain figures in the GSTR 3B return and it is not tallying with the GSTR-1 to that extent petitioner’s request is for rectification of the same. Thus, petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.05.2020 and it is set aside. The concerned authorities are hereby directed to rectify form GSTR 3B on par with contents of GSTR-1 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. In this regard, petitioner is hereby directed to submit a manual application. The concerned authority is hereby directed to redress the consequent grievance if any, of the petitioner within a period of two months from today.
With the above observation the present writ petition stands allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1432
Seeking to restore the cancellation of GST registration - No business conducted at the declared place of business - petitioner produced an additional affidavit with invoices and photographs evidencing ongoing business operations at the declared location - HELD THAT:- The documents so furnished demonstrate that the business of the petitioner has been conducted till date. No serious objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel. However, to appreciate the factual aspects, the matter needs to be remitted to the authority concerned for consideration of evidence and if required, inspection be done with regard to existence of business at the declared place.
Accordingly, the order dated 12.08.2024 is set aside and the opposite party No.2-State Tax Officer, Jajpur Circle, Jajpur is directed to reconsider the matter taking into account the documents furnished before this Court by way of additional affidavit.
Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1431
Seeking adequate remedy by way of appeal before the appellate authority - Validity and legality of the impugned notice in Form GST DRC-13 - HELD THAT:- Accordingly, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the appellate authority within a period of six weeks from today. It is further directed that the interim orders passed by this Court in the present petition shall continue for a period of six weeks from today. The amounts already recovered by the respondents shall be subject to the final outcome of the appeals to be filed by the petitioner.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1430
Electronic credit ledger blocked by invoking Rule 86A of the 'the CGST Rules' - No pre-decisional hearing provided/granted and No valid "reasons to believe" contain in passing the impugned order - Rule of "Audi alteram partem" - Challenged the validity of the impugned orders - HELD THAT:- In view of the dictum of the Division Bench in the case of K-9-Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka [2024 (10) TMI 491 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], I am of the considered opinion that in the instant case since no pre-decisional hearing are provided/granted by the respondents before passing the impugned order, coupled with the fact that the impugned order invoking Section 86A blocking of the Electronic credit ledger of the petition does not contain independent or cogent reasons to believe/accept by placing reliance upon reports of enforcement authority which is impermissible in law, since the same is on borrowed satisfaction as held by Division Bench, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order except stating that the registered person/ supplier "found to be a bill trader and involved in issuance/availment in fake invoices and the business premises is not existing", no other reasons are forthcoming in the impugned order. On this ground also, the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 deserves to the quashed.
In the result, pass the following:
The petition is hereby allowed and Impugned order dated 13.01.2025 at Annexure - A is hereby quashed.
The concerned respondents are directed to unblock the Electronic credit ledger of the petitioner immediately upon the receipt of copy of this order, so as to enable the petitioner to file returns forthwith.
Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment of Division Bench in K-9-Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka reported in W.A.No.100425/2023 and connected matters.
The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 21.04.2025 without awaiting further notice from respondent No.2.
It is further made clear that in the event petitioner does not appear before respondent No.2 on 01.04.2025, the present order shall stand automatically recalled/cancelled and the present petition shall stand revived/ restored without further orders and without reference to the Bench.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1429
Simultaneous Proceedings by Central GST Authority u/s 70 and State GST authorities u/s 74 - Same subject matter - Entitlement to avail Input Tax Credit in the light of the Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST - valuation for the purpose of payment of taxes plus interest is covered by Circular No.210/4/2024-GST - availement of the benefit of Amnesty scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act - Challenged the impugned SCN - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that in November 2022, respondent No. 3 had initiated proceedings / intimation under Section 70 of the CGST Act by issuing letter on 28.11.2022, which is followed by the Show Cause Notices dated 27.09.2023. Meanwhile, despite having initiated proceedings on 28.11.2022, respondent No. 4 – State authorities who has issued the impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexures – A. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the said issue is answered by this Court in M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others [2024 (10) TMI 1240 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
As held in the aforesaid judgment, in view of Section 6 (2) (b) of the CGST Act, Annexure A deserve to be quashed.
Insofar as challenge to the impugned Notice at Annexure – A1 coupled with the contention that the petitioner would be entitled to avail Input Tax Credit under Section 16 (4) of the CGST / KGST Act is concerned, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, petitioner is to be relegated back to respondent No. 3 for consideration of its claim in accordance with law in the light of the said decisions and the Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024.
Insofar as the valuation regarding payment of tax and interests are concerned, in view of Circular No.210/4/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 even this issue would necessarily have to be decided by respondent No. 3 in accordance with law and the decision of Delhi High Court in Thales India Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of CGST, Audit – II, Delhi & Another [2025 (2) TMI 245 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
In the result, I pass the following:
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure – A dated 26.09.2023 issued by respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed.
(iii) Petitioner is relegated to the stage of filing reply to the Show Cause Notice at Annexure – A1 dated 27.09.2023 before respondent No. 3.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file its reply, pleadings, documents, etc., before respondent No. 3, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the judgment of above Courts; Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 and Circular No. 210/4/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1357
Validity of consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) u/s 74 or Consolidated Adjudicating Order for different financial year - Petitioner contended that the notice under Section 74 of the Act can, at some stage, even get converted as a notice under Section 73 of the Act and therefore, the consolidation of either the Show Cause or Final order could not be permissible.
HELD THAT:- Matter listed for 29th April, 2025 in the Supplementary list.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1356
Failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of communication of details of tax, interest and penalty in terms of subrule (1A) of Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017 before service of notice - illegal assumption of jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 122(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017 - retrospective operation - determination of tax liability pertaining to the tax periods from July, 2017 to March, 2019 fell in error of law - invoking provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - sustainability of the Order-in-Original - HELD THAT:- Since Mr. Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel appears and waives issue of notice on behalf of Opposite Parties, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is requested to serve adequate number of copies of the writ petition on him within three working days to enable him to obtain instructions.
Since the learned Junior Standing Counsel has requested for obtaining instruction with respect to imposition of penalty in the context of amendment in sub-section (1A) of Section 122 of the CGST Act and consequences of non-communication of GST DRC-01A under Rule142(1A), as an interim measure, it is directed that the Petitioner shall deposit 20% of the amount of tax as determined in Order-in- Original dated 31.01.2025 under Annexure-3 within a period of two weeks hence and furnish evidence thereof before the authority concerned. If such deposit is made within said period stipulated, the Opposite Parties shall be restrained from taking coercive measure to enforce the demand raised in the impugned Order-in-Original (Annexure-3) till the next date.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1355
Extension of time limit of issuance of SCN u/s 73 / 74 - Validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax -procedural requirements under Section 168A for prior to the issuance of notifications - No opportunity to file a reply to the SCN - Challenging the SCN and impugned order - HELD THAT:- In view of the peculiar circumstances and bearing in mind the period that has lapsed between the assessment years and the issuance of the SCN, the impugned order is set aside.
Considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
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.
The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1354
Limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 - No opportunity to file a reply of SCN or participate in the proceedings - Cancellation of the GST registration retrospectively violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Following the decision of this Court on similar facts, in the Ms Blackmelonadvance Technology Company Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner Of State Goods And Services Tax Delhi & Anr. [2025 (4) TMI 1511 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Accordingly, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner’s appeal is directed to be heard on merits, subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as costs with the Department of Trade & Taxes, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
The proof of costs shall be placed before the Appellate Authority and the appeal shall be restored to its original number. The appeal shall be heard by the Appellate Authority on merits in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1353
Cancellation of the GST registration retrospectively - principal place of business not found/available at the field visit - No opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN - principles of natural justice - Validity of SCN and impugned order - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, 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 a fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly.
The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1352
Disallowance of input tax credit (ITC) - bogus input tax credit - non-existent supplier - Availment of the alternative remedy - seeking withdrawal of the writ petition - HELD THAT:- Faced with such situation, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority as available under the CGST/OGST Act.
Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1351
Rejection of an appeal on grounds of a 37-day delay - Show Cause Notice alleging discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 - delay resulted from efforts to remit tax through the Block Development Officer (BDO) - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact the delay of 37 days has been satisfactorily explained, this Court is of the view that the order of the 1st respondent warrants interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated of the first respondent dated 15.04.2025 is set aside and a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to entertain the petitioner's appeal without reference to the delay and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
The Writ Petition is disposed of to the extent indicated above.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1350
Application for amending the particulars in the GST registration - seeking to change the address of the principal place of business mentioned - Input Tax Credit has been blocked - HELD THAT:- The Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner should be afforded another opportunity to provide the details as requested. The Petitioner shall accordingly submit the documents through the portal within one month and seek a hearing. Personal hearing shall be given in this matter and the application for change in the address of the principal place of business shall be considered and an order shall be passed within a period of three months.
If any Input Tax Credit of the Petitioner has been blocked, the same shall be unblocked as well. It is clarified that this order would not affect any other proceedings, if any, pending against the Petitioner or in respect of the said GSTN number.
The present writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1349
Challenge to SCN and consequent demand order - challenge to N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 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.
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 writ petition was filed in the year 2024, raising issues as to the validity of the impugned notification. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, 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 1348
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.
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 writ petition was filed in the year 2024, raising issues as to the validity of the impugned notification. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, 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 1347
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.
The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In response to show cause notices dated 04th December, 2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall file its replies within thirty days. The hearing notices shall now not be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also be emailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing notice being received, the Petitioner would appear before the Department and make its submissions. The show cause notices shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.
There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made to the portal and the Additional Notices Tab has been made visible. However, in the present case, the writ petition was filed in 2024 raising issues as to the validity of the impugned Notifications. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
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 to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing.
The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1346
Refund claim in FORM GST RFD-06 - Entitlement to interest on the Balance Refund - petitioner has not furnished material information - participation in the purchase and distribution of LPG empty cylinders and LPG gas - HELD THAT:- We have noticed from the pleadings of the petitioner before the concerned authority that LPG Empty Cylinder has not sold to consumer, on the other hand, he must have sold only gas, that means prima facie section 54 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 would attract.
Be that as it may, having regard to the disputed issues the petitioner is relegated to the appellate authority in the event of filing memorandum of appeal before the appellate authority within a period of eight weeks from today. The concerned appellate authority is hereby directed to take note of and decide the memorandum of appeal to be filed on behalf of the appellant within a reasonable period of four months from the date of receipt of such appeal.
With the above observation, the present CWJC No. 14403 of 2024 stands disposed of.
............
|
9911796707
