Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

GST - Case Laws

Showing 61 to 80 of 3785 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.

• 2020 (10) TMI 672 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  
  Grant of Regular Bail - offences under Sections 132(1) (b) (c) (d) (f) (i) and (l) read with Section 132 (1) (i) (iv) and read with sub-section (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Although in the present case allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature but the fact remains that the petitioners are in custody for the last more than two years and admittedly maximum punishment to be imposed on the accused, if convicted, is five years. Complaint in the present case was filed in the year 2018, whereas, the investigation has been concluded in July, 2020. Now the case is listed before the trial court for recording of pre-charge evidence and the trial may not be concluded at an early date. Considering the custody period of the petitioners, but without commenting on the merits of the case, it wo....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 671 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  Profiteering - validity of order passed - vires of Section 171 of CGST Act and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the orders passed by this Court in PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (6) TMI 626 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as well as M/S. SAMSONITE SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (7) TMI 526 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and M/S. PATANJALI AYURVED LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (7) TMI 614 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this Court directs the petitioner to deposit the principal profiteered amount (i.e. ₹ 7,53,854/- minus ₹ 35,898/-) in six equated monthly installments commencing 15th October, 2020. List on 3rd November, 2020.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 670 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  Refund of GST amount deposited during investigation - Search and seizure proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent against the petitioner under Section 67 of GST Act - Revenue Sharing - compensation to the Petitioners for causing damage to the reputation of the Petitioners - HELD THAT:- The provisions of the Act like inspection of the premises, powers of arrest and summons to produce documents have been incorporated with the aim to prevent evasion of GST at the hands of the unscrupulous taxpayers. Observation of mine would not be connected with the act of the petitioners as it is a general observation. If at all, the residences of the petitioners were visited by the officers of the GST, they could have produced on record the video recording, as it cannot be expected that the petitioners, who are Managing Director and Director of a Media....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 669 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
  
  Validity of impugned summary of show-cause notice - contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned summary of show-cause notice has been issued without issuance of a show-cause notice as is required under Section 74(1) of the CGGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that the matter need not be kept pending any further for further adjudication by this Court at this stage. The matter as such stands remitted back to the respondent no. 2 to ensure that a show-cause notice as is required u/s 74 (1) is duly issued and served upon the petitioner granting him some reasonable time to respond to the said show-cause notice and thereafter proceed in accordance with the provision of law. Petition disposed off.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 630 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
  
  Classification of goods - ready to consume pouch milk fortified with vitamins A and D and small quantities of turmeric (Haldi) and black pepper extracts - classified under HSN 0401 and exempt under Serial No. 25 of Notification No. 2/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 or otherwise? - whether the product gets removed from HSN 0401 for the use of the additives like the vitamins and turmeric extracts? - HELD THAT:- Explanatory Note concerning HSN 0401 says, “products of this heading may be frozen and may contain the additives referred to in the General Explanatory Note to this Chapter.” The said General Explanatory Note states that Chapter 4 covers milk (full cream milk and wholly or partially skimmed milk), cream, buttermilk, curdled milk and cream, yoghurt, kephir and other fermented or acidified milk and cream, whey, th....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 629 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
  
  Construction of the pipeline in Bangladesh - Works contract service or not - export of service or not - place of supply of service - input tax credit on its inward supplies for the service rendered in the construction of Bangladesh portion of the pipeline - levy of tax on goods or services procured locally within Bangladesh for the purpose of construction of Bangladesh portion of the pipeline on behalf of NRL - input tax credit on procurement of such goods or services in Bangladesh used in the construction of Bangladesh portion of the pipeline on behalf of NRL. HELD THAT:- A strip of land extending over more than a hundred kilometre is not a fixed establishment in terms of section 2(7) of the IGST Act. Location of the recipient in the present context cannot, therefore, be determined by applying the provisions under section 2(14) (b) or (c....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 628 - SC ORDER
  
  Grant of Pre-arrest Bail - non-bailable offence in terms of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - main allegation of the respondents is that, applicants are guilty of circular trading by claiming Input Tax Credit on the materials never purchased and passing on such Input Tax Credit to companies to whom they never sold any goods - it was held by the High Court that though the officers under the CGST Act, cannot seek custody of the arrested persons for completing the investigation, respondent’s contention that applicant’s detention in custody is necessary to prevent him from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering such evidence is well founded. HELD THAT:- SLP Dismissed.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 627 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  Detention of consignment of goods - mis-classification of the goods - case of petitioner is that the alleged mis-classification of the goods cannot be a reason for detaining the consignment under Section 129 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- There are force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of mis-classification of goods cannot warrant a detention of the goods under Section 129 of the GST Act. If the respondents feel that there has been a mis-classification of the goods, then it is for them to prepare a report based on the physical verification done by them, get the petitioner to sign on the same after recording his objections, if any, to the findings recorded therein, and thereafter forward a copy of the said report to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner, who can consider the said report and o....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 574 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  Confiscation of goods alongwith vehicle - Section 130 of the Goods and Service Tax Act - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that there was no statement of reasons that accompanied Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders, but all that the adjudicating authority had done was to enclose the separate sheets that had accompanied the notices issued in Form GST MOV-10 (Exts.P3 and P3(a)) to the assessee. In fact paragraph 2 of Form GST MOV-11 contemplates the separate enclosure of the contents of the notice issued in Form GST MOV-10 along with the order that is to be served on the assessee in Form GST MOV-11. The said requirement is over and above the requirement to give reasons to support the demand in the order of confiscation passed in Form GST MOV-11. In as much as it is not in di....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 573 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  Levy of GST on profiteered amount - constitutional validity of Section 171 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules 126, 127 and 133 of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the orders passed by this Court in PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (6) TMI 626 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as well as M/S. SAMSONITE SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (7) TMI 526 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and M/S. PATANJALI AYURVED LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (7) TMI 614 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this Court directs the petitioner to deposit the principal profiteered amount i.e. ₹ 25,53,454/- (₹ 30,13,058/- minus ₹ 4,59,604/-) in six equated installments commencing 02nd November, 2020. The interest amount directed to be paid by the respondents as well as penalty proceedings are stayed till further orders. List on 03rd November, 2020.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 572 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  Grant of short extension of the registration granted to the petitioner - limited purposes of the petitioner accessing the system to upload its returns and pay tax, as also to avail applicable input tax credit - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the original certificate of registration (Ext.P1) granted to the petitioner was only for a limited period of about 30 days. In other words, the petitioner did not seek a registration for a period which it could have applied for. However, on account of the Covid-19 pandemic situation, the petitioner could not upload the details regarding the invoices issued during the period for which it was granted registration, and in relation to the work that was done during the said period. When it tried to apply for a short extension of the registration so as to complete the process, it was met with a situation ....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 571 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  
  Refund of IGST paid on export - refund not being paid for the reason that the writ petitioner had inadvertently mentioned the drawback claim under column A instead of column B - HELD THAT:- Similar issue had arisen and was duly dealt with by a Division Bench in its judgement M/S AMIT COTTON INDUSTRIES THROUGH PARTNER, VELJIBHAI VIRJIBHAI RANIPA VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2019 (7) TMI 472 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - The said judgement has attained finality and this Court, while allowing the petition, directed for refund of the IGST paid in regard to the good exported with 7% simple interest from the date of shipping bills till the date of actual refund. The present petition also deserves to be allowed in the same terms, and is, accordingly, allowed.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 570 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  Grant of Pre-arrest Bail - non-bailable offence in terms of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - main allegation of the respondents is that, applicants are guilty of circular trading by claiming Input Tax Credit on the materials never purchased and passing on such Input Tax Credit to companies to whom they never sold any goods - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted that, applicants in their written submissions did not explain why applicants could not produce invoices and other documents before the respondent-Officer and further when such invoices came in their possession. Applicants ought to have been explained and furnish the explanation in view of the fact that, M/s. Jai Bajrang Traders, the sole supplier has lodged FIR against the applicants for forging the invoices - Be that as ....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 527 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  Validity of Garnishee notice - proceedings under Sections 67 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It would be appropriate if the Respondents produce the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in respect of all the garnishee notices. Stand over to 15.10.2020 as a part heard matter.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 526 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  Refund of Outstanding GST - the learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record a letter dated 29th September, 2020 issued by Deputy Commissioner (Legal) stating that pending IGST refund of ₹ 7,61,176/- has been scrolled out to the petitioner vide Scroll No.26339/2020 dated 29th September, 2020. HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that she has received pending IGST refund of ₹ 7,61,176/- - the present writ petition is disposed of as satisfied.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 525 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  Grant of Bail - Second time arrest of a person in different capacity - learned Senior Standing Counsel for the DGGI submits that the impugned order is legally flawed for the reason firstly, that the transactions relating to M/s Gaia Overseas and M/s Aadhar India are separate and distinct transactions, each of which comprise a separate offence under the GST Act; and secondly, that merely because the respondent is a partner in one of the entities and sole proprietor of the other, does not mean that he cannot separately be arrested for a distinct transaction that he undertook through his sole proprietorship concern M/s Aadhar India. HELD THAT:- Let counter-affidavit be filed within 03 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 02 weeks thereafter - List on 17.12.2020.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 524 - PATIALA HOUSE COURT
  
  Grant of Bail - Department failed to submit its report about the real culprit who availed the ITC - HELD THAT:- It is informed by the Ld. Standing Counsel for the Department that all the offences under the CGST Act are compoundable in nature. The apprehension of Ld. CMM that certain offences shall remain undetected on account of composition of various offences under the provisions of GST Act is well founded. Regretfully, almost for more than a month, the department seems to be in a state of slumber. The directions passed by the Ld. CMM appears to have not been paid any heed by the concerned quarter. In my considered opinion, the issue of life and liberty of applicant/accused cannot be decided on the basis of a half baked status report filed by the complainant department. Therefore, the court is constrained to adjourn the matter on the req....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 523 - PATIALA HOUSE COURT
  
  Grant of Bail - It is forcefully argued by Ld. counsel for applicant/accused that department is maliciously and mischievously saving the real culprits - It is submitted that none of the firms which are availing tax input credit belongs to the applicant/accused. - HELD THAT:- Looking into the material available on record, the submissions of Ld. defence counsel calls for a deeper probe. To come up for further arguments/ further proceedings in the matter on 08.10.2020. A copy of the instant order be sent to Concerned Addl. Commissioner, Anti Evasion, GST department for necessary information.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 468 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
  
  Classification of supply - Supply of Goods or Supply of Job Work Services - promotion of commercial activities relating to Foundry Industry & preservation of environment through its Sand Reclamation Plants - impact of used waste sand which is of the value ‘Nil’ , on valuation - HELD THAT:- From a combined reading of the definition of “job work” and the procedure of job work as prescribed u/s 143 of the CGST Act and Rule 45 of Rules, it is the principal who will send inputs to the job worker for undertaking any treatment or process that may or may not amount to manufacture and will bring back same after the completion of job work. Thus the person who send goods to the job worker is a principal and the person who undertakes treatment/ processing is a job worker - In the present case applicants have received waste....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 467 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  Calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioners case - HELD THAT:- As per the administrative instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, to implement the decision of the GST council it has been decided that for the period 1 st July, 2017 to 31st August, 2020 field formations have been instructed to recover interest only on the net cash liability i.e. that portion of the tax that has been paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger or is payable through cash ledger. In those cases where show cause notices have been issued calling upon the noticees to make payment on gross tax liability, those have been directed to be kept in the Call Book till retrospective amendment is made in Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petition dismissed.

---