|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 2022
Violation of principles of natural justice - Rejection of bail application without considering the material facts - respondent department before making the formal arrest of the applicant/accused, illegally detained the applicant/accused for more than 24 hours at the office of CGST - creation of web of multiple fake firms whereby accused has created facade of non-existent transaction with intention to illegally take advantage of input credit - flight risk - HELD THAT:- Specific query was put in respect of summoning of accused after vacation of withdrawal of protection to accused. It was submitted that no summons were issued. Therefore, there is substance in the arguments on behalf of accused that he is not flight risk.
The accused is in custody from last about 57 days. It was argued on behalf of accused that in 60 days complaint is to be filed but same has not been filed till date. In this regard also, on query, it is submitted on behalf of Department that they are trying to file the complaint within time framed. However, another submission was also made that investigation is going on. Though, it was argued on behalf of State that admitting accused on bail may hamper the investigation. Yet it was not explained how the accused will hamper the investigation. It is not reported or argued that accused is involved in any other criminal case of similar kind or any kind. It implies that accused is first offender.
Further, in the case Vineet Jain Vs Union of India [2025 (5) TMI 925 - SC ORDER], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that list of documents and list of witnesses shows that the evidence is documentary and even if there is an ocular statement has already been recorded in this regard. Complaint having been filed, is primarily indicator that investigation is being complete qua applicant/accused. No purpose seems to be served by keeping applicant/accused in custody any further.
The applicant/accused Liyakat is admitted in bail subject to furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety who should be family member of accused subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 2021
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - disputed interpretation of tax liability - evasion of GST - fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts or not - stay of proceedings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India - HELD THAT:- In the present matter, accused was granted interim protection. Though, it is a matter of record that department did not summon him yet, it is not the contention of accused that he attempted to reach out to the department. Needless to say that there is no legal duty on the accused to reach out to the department/investigating agency, however, such conduct would have shown the bona fide on behalf of applicant/accused. As per record/reply, summons were issued on 17.09.2024, 22.09.2024, 04.10.2024, 17.10.2024, 28.10.2024, 04.11.2024, 13.11.2024, 06.12.2024 and 08.01.2025 (09 in number), as well as admittedly, NBWs have been issued against accused. Therefore, after having the protection of no coercive action had accused approached the investigating agency sou moto, it would have been a show of bona fide by accused.
Another argument taken by Ld. Defence Counsel was stay of proceedings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The print-out of the order has been placed on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as directed ‘further proceedings of all the impugned Show Cause Notices shall remain stayed till final disposal of the main matter along with all the matters which are tagged’.
Another aspect needs to be considered is statements of employees to the effect that applicant/accused has asked them not to disclose to anyone. To say the least, it amounts to asking to withholding the relevant information and also to manage the witnesses as to what to say. The same is not permissible under law. A person facing such allegations fails to cross the bar of test laid down for admitting an accused in anticipatory bail.
The application of applicant/accused seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1952
Tax liability in terms of Rule 28 Second Proviso of CGST Rules read with CBIC Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST dated 17th July, 2023 - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is relevant to note that the impugned order dated 31st January, 2025 is appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, the issues that are being raised by the Petitioner can also be considered by the Appellate Authority. While there can be no doubt that writ jurisdiction can be exercised in certain cases, since this involves a detailed factual analysis testing the applicability of the said circular as also Rule 28 of CGST Rules to the facts, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.
The Petitioner is permitted to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 within a period of 60 days. The specific contentions captured above shall be considered by the Appellate Authority without being influenced by the findings given in the impugned Order-in-Original.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1868
Challenge to Adjudication Order u/s 73 of CGST/UPGST Act - failure to file reply to the notice sent by the respondent-department - HELD THAT:- The manner of passing of order dated 13th August, 2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that 'the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision. The statutory requirements for passing an order by setting out relevant facts and basis for the decision are totally missing from the order dated 13th August, 2024. Even if no response was filed to the notice issued under Section 73 of the Act, it was incumbent on respondent no.2 to pass an order in compliance of the provisions of Section 75(6) of the Act, as a final order should be self contained and merely making reference to the previous notice while passing the said order does not suffice for making it a self contained order.
The order dated 13th August, 2024 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.5/Commercial Tax Officer, Sector-5, Bareilly, U.P. to provide an opportunity of filing response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1867
Initiation of proceedings u/s 129 of the CGST Act - time limitation - it is the specific case of the petitioner that, due to the failure on the part of the system maintained by the respondents to address the situation that arose in this case, the petitioner was prevented from filing appeal - HELD THAT:- As regards the right of an appeal contemplated under Section 107 of the CGST Act is concerned, if the taxpayer is aggrieved by any order passed by the authorities concerned, he can invoke the said remedies. The fact that the tax covered by the order under challenge was paid, will not take away such right of appeal of the party. Here in this case, merely because, the petitioner remitted the amount under protest, he was deprived of the opportunity to invoke the statutory remedy.
The denial of that statutory remedy was not attributable to the petitioner at all, but solely because of the shortcomings in the system provided by the respondents for filing the appeal. Ext.P2 would indicate that, the petitioner made an attempt to file an appeal within the statutory period and he was prevented from doing the same only because of the reason that, the petitioner had paid the entire amount demanded as per the impugned order. Even though the said aspect was highlighted by the petitioner before the authorities concerned in Ext. P3, it was not addressed by the authorities.
As far as the Ext.P6 order is concerned, under no circumstances the same can be treated as a justifiable one. Of course it is true that, technically the 3rd respondent was justified in adopting the view that the appeal is time barred, as the same was submitted after the expiry of four months, which was beyond the condonable period of delay. However, there was no attempt to consider the circumstances which prompted the petitioner to submit an appeal beyond the statutory period and the same ought to have been taken into account. Evidently, it was impossible for the petitioner to submit an appeal with the provisions available in the system provided by the respondents.
This writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P6 with a direction to the 3rd respondent to restore Ext.P5 appeal and to consider the matter on merits by treating it as an appeal submitted in time.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1866
Dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order - time limitation - impugned order has been passed by the first respondent holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner was beyond the statutory period prescribed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal - period in dispute is from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner may have a case to establish, this Court is inclined to come to the rescue of the petitioner by balancing the interest of the petitioner and the respondents by quashing the assessment order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thanjavur, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, after adjusting 10% of the disputed tax, which is said to have been deposited by the petitioner before the first respondent at the time of filing of the appeal against the said order beyond the statutory period prescribed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the first respondent.
Subject to the petitioner depositing another 15% of the disputed tax, the petitioner shall be subjected to fresh proceedings by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Thanjavur-I Assessment Circle, Thanjavur, who is now suo motu impleaded as second respondent to this writ petition.
The order dated 14.08.2024, which stands quashed, shall be treated as corrigendum to the notices that preceded in DRC 01 and DRC 01A. The petitioner shall file a detailed reply explaining the position - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1845
Violation of principles of natural justice - issuance of summary of SCN without issuing any SCN u/s 73 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the summary of order without passing any order u/s 73 (9) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Both the learned counsels for the parties submit that similar issue has already been dealt in order passed by a Coordinate Bench in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Assam and 2 others [2024 (10) TMI 279 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT].
Accordingly, this writ petition is having similar issue, the determination made in said Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd, shall cover the present case, where it was held that 'This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that it is on account of certain technicalities and the manner in which the impugned orders were passed, this Court interfered with the impugned orders and hence set aside and quashed the same. It is also relevant to take note of that the respondent authorities were under the impression that issuance of attachment of the determination of tax which was attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice would constitute a valid Show Cause Notice. Under such circumstances, in the interest of justice, this Court while setting aside the impugned Orders-in-Original as detailed out in the Appendix, grants liberty to the respondent authorities to initiate de novo proceedings under Section 73, if deemed fit for the relevant financial year in question.'
The issue raised in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd and the present petition is similar and therefore, the determination made in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd, shall accordingly cover the present petition and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition stands disposed of by setting aside the summary of show cause notice dated 08.05.2024 and the summary of order dated 30.08.2024 in terms of the determination and conclusion arrived at para 29 of Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1844
Challenge to detention and confiscation order - no notice was served prior to the order u/s 130 of the Act of 2017 - copy of the order passed u/s 130 was sent or not - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner admittedly is the owner of the vehicle (conveyance). The statute prescribes the mode of notice. The notice stated to have been sent to the Petitioner/owner through WhatsApp is not a mode of service contemplated under Section 169 of the Act of 2017. While such a practice was permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it no longer constitutes a valid mode of issuing notice under the provisions of the Act of 2017, and there is no debate regarding the same. The notice served on the Petitioner before holding that the proceedings under Section 130 are concluded against the Petitioner is not placed on record. There is, therefore, a serious lacuna in the procedure adopted by the Respondents as far as confiscation of the Petitioner’s vehicle is concerned. The Petitioner has consistently taken this stand.
The Petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Lakshay Logistics v. State of Gujarat Order [2021 (1) TMI 99 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and the decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Poomika Infra Developers, Erode and others v. State Tax Officer and others Order [2025 (4) TMI 1308 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. In the case of M/s Lakshay Logistics, the Division Bench has taken the view that proceedings initiated under Section 130 of the Act of 2017 would be without jurisdiction if notice is not served on the person interested and the owner.
The Petitioner’s conveyance was seized without there being any notice as contemplated under Section 130 of the Act of 2017. In such circumstances, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Lakshay Logistics would squarely apply to the case of the Petitioner. In this decision, the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court set aside the order passed under Section 130 of the Act solely on the ground of non-service of notice.
Conclusion - The proceedings stated to have been concluded against the Petitioner under Section 130 of the Act of 2017 in respect of the vehicle are without jurisdiction for want of valid notice.
The matter is remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1843
Challenge to final order issued u/s 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - service of SCN - right of the petitioner to be entitled to a personal hearing in consonance with the provisions of Section 75(4) of the said Act - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, a show-cause notice was duly served on the petitioner. The petitioner however did not avail the opportunity to file any response. However, it is the mandate of Section 75(4) of the said Act which, inter alia, makes it obligatory for the proper officer before passing any order under Section 73 or Section 74 of the said Act to afford an opportunity of hearing if, a request is made by a notice in writing for a personal hearing or if, an adverse decision is contemplated against the tax payer.
It is true that in the instant case no request was made in writing by the petitioner for personal hearing, however, considering the show cause and the fact that the an adverse order was contemplated against the petitioner, the proper officer ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity of hearing prior to disposal of the proceeding under Section 73 of the said Act.
It is inclined to set aside the order passed by the proper officer dated 28th May, 2025 and to remand the matter back to the proper officer for a decision on merit - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1842
Challenge to investigation proceedings - large-scale evasion of tax by availing the fraudulent input tax credit - HPGST/CGST Act does not provide for investigation and filing of the complaint - applicability of the provisions of Cr.P.C to GST Act - HELD THAT:- The applicability of the provisions of Cr.P.C to GST Act was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, [2025 (2) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], and it was held that the provisions of Cr.P.C. apply to the proceedings conducted under GST Act if there is no provision to the contrary - the submission that the provisions of Cr.P.C. do not apply to GST Act and the Act is silent regarding the procedure for investigation, inquiry, or trial is not correct.
It was submitted that the investigation was not properly conducted. The officials visited the addresses mentioned in the invoices and did not contact the GST Officials in Delhi to ascertain the proper names and addresses. This submission will not help the petitioners. When the officials went to the addresses mentioned in the invoices and found that no such entity existed, it was sufficient to infer that the invoices were fake, and the material shown to have been supplied as per the invoices could not have been supplied since no such person existed at the given address. The Court has to see a prima facie case while exercising inherent power and does not sift the evidence to determine its creditworthiness or value. This is for the learned Trial Court to see where the matter is pending; hence, the complaint cannot be quashed simply because the investigation was not made with the GST authorities at Delhi.
In Mukesh Singh [2020 (9) TMI 419 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the investigation is not vitiated simply because the informant is the investigator. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case; hence, the cited judgment does not show that the complaint is liable to be quashed because the investigation was made by the officials of the department.
Conclusion - The Court has to see a prima facie case while exercising inherent power and does not sift the evidence to determine its creditworthiness or value. This is for the learned Trial Court to see where the matter is pending; hence, the complaint cannot be quashed simply because the investigation was not made with the GST authorities at Delhi.
The present petition fails and the same is dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1841
Refund of unutilized ITC - requirement of FIRCs - petitioner is unable to access Form GST RFD-08 on the GST common portal and only the Annexure to GST RFD-08 is available - Can CA Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant be considered by the Authority as an authentic document - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Versus Mangal Textile Mills Private Limited [2010 (2) TMI 699 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant is required to be considered by the Authority as an authentic document and in the facts of the case when the Chartered Accountant has issued the Certificate, the respondent-Authorities bound to take into consideration the same.
On perusal of the Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, it is clear that the petitioner has received the convertible foreign exchange for the export of the services and therefore, only on the ground that the petitioner has submitted the FIRC as required by the Circular No. 125/44/2019 issued by the CBIC, the respondent Authorities were not justified in rejecting the refund claim.
Conclusion - The respondent-Authorities are directed to process the refund claim of the petitioner filed on 16th February, 2023 in accordance with law without insisting for FIRC as required by the Circular No. 125/44/2019 and accepting the Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant for receipt of the net foreign exchange received by the petitioner as per the in-principal approval granted by the Reserve Bank of India to the petitioner for realisation of foreign exchange for export of services.
The impugned order dated 10.06.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1840
Refund of the unadjusted excess amount of input tax credit which remained unutilised under the VAT Act - requirement for the petitioner to file Form GST-TRAN-1 under the provisions of the GST Act to carry forward the unadjusted unutilised input tax credit under the VAT regime - entitlement to the refund of the amount which was shown as “amount of tax credit carried forward to the next tax period” in VAT Form No. 201 after the mandatory period of assessment is over under Section 34(2) of the VAT Act.
HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 140 of the GST Act provides for transitional arrangements for input tax credit. On perusal of the Sub-section (1) of Section 140 of the GST Act, it clearly provides that the assessee shall be entitled to take credit in his electronic credit ledger the amount of CENVAT credit or eligible duties carried forward in return relating to the period ending on 30th June, 2017. However, on perusal of the provision, it appears that it is not mandatory for the assessee to carry forward the CENVAT credit or eligible duties in the return filed under the various Acts - Section 174 of the GST Act provides for repeal and savings. Sub-section (2) of the said Act provides for savings under the various Acts which were repealed by Sub-section (1) of the GST Act. Clause (c) of the Sub-section (2) provides that the repeal of the said Acts shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or accrued or incurred under the amended Acts or the repealed Acts or orders under such repealed or amended Acts. Therefore, it is required to be considered as to whether the petitioner who has admittedly not carried forward the unadjusted unutilised tax credit under the GST regime is entitled to refund of such tax credit or not under the VAT Act in view of the provisions of Section 174(2)(c) of the GST Act.
In the facts of the case, no audit assessment under Section 34(2) of the VAT Act after expiry of four years from the Financial Year 2017-18 can be carried out. The petitioner therefore, in absence of any assessment is entitled to refund of the unutilised tax credit as per the provisions of Section 36 of the VAT Act read with Rule 15(6) of the VAT Rules which provides that where the tax credit (other than credit on capital goods) admissible in the year remains unadjusted against the output tax as per Section 11 of the VAT Act, such amount shall be refunded not later than expiry of two years from the end of the year in which such tax credit had become admissible. The proviso to Rule 15(6) provides that the dealer claiming such refund shall have to prove to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority that the purchases of the goods on which such tax credit has been calculated have been disposed of in the manner referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the VAT Act within the period of which the refund under Sub-rule becomes admissible.
The petitioner has been able to prove that the goods upon which such credit was shown to be carried forward to next tax period have been disposed of as per the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the VAT Act and therefore, there is a compliance of the proviso to Rule 15(6) of the VAT Rules. It is therefore, incumbent upon the respondent No. 2 to sanction the refund of Rs. 3,90,762/- which has remained unadjusted unutilised tax credit as on 30th June, 2017 in the VAT return of the petitioner.
Conclusion - The respondent No. 2 therefore could not have rejected the applications filed by the petitioner on 29.03.2023 and 05.01.2024 on the ground that the time to claim the refund has expired through the respondent No. 2 was liable to pay the refund of the said amount within period of two years as per the Rule 15(6) of the VAT Rules. However, in the facts of the case, the period of more than four years have expired and even the time to make audit assessment under section 34 of the VAT Act has also expired and therefore, the respondent-Authority cannot carry out any further inquiry under the provisions of the VAT Act, the petitioner would be entitled to the refund of the amount which has admittedly remained without being carried forward under the GST regime in view of the provision of Section 174(2)(c) of the GST Act.
The respondent authority is directed to process the refund claim of the petitioner for Rs. 3,90,762/- in accordance with provisions of VAT Act read with section 174(2) (c) of the GST Act within twelve(12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy this order - petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1792
Validity of condition imposed for bail - onerous condition - failure to meet condition to deposit Rs. 50,00,000/-, which was later modified and was allowed to be paid after release on bail - HELD THAT:- There cannot be any dispute that excessive bail is no bail and onerous conditions ought not to be imposed while bail is granted. As to what is an onerous condition would no doubt depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. What is troubling however, is when attempts are made to foreclose consideration of bail application on merits by voluntarily offering deposits of amounts and thereafter reneging on it by stating that a counsel had no authority and/or that the condition is onerous.
If the offer for monetary deposit had not been made, at the outset, the High Court may have considered the case on merits and may have granted or may not have granted relief to the petitioner. Today the petitioner is approbating and reprobating. The rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are concious, but it is to be equally conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process and cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the Court. In this scenario, the only conclusion possible is that both, the original bail order of 08.05.2025 and the order of modification dated 14.05.2025 granting final relief, will have to be set aside and the matter be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits uninfluenced by any of the observations of this Court.
The situation now is that the petitioner, taking advantage of the order of the High Court, has secured his release. Ordinarily the consequence would have been to put the petitioner back in jail. However, considering the averments made in the modification application in this case, it is inclined to grant a limited interim protection to the petitioner from surrendering.
Let the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras on or before 30.06.2025 with a request to the Chief Justice to place the matter before the appropriate Court immediately.
SLP disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1791
Cancellation of Petitioner’s registration - violation of provisions of Section 16 since the ITC benefit is taken without there being any genuine transactions of buying and selling - HELD THAT:- The Order-In-Original does not refer to any subclauses of Section 29(2), but it only refers to Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 21 of CGST Rules 2017.
The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that only provisions of Section 29(2) (e) are invoked, not accepted. On a reading of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Order-In-Original, it is very clear that the provisions of Section 29(2) (a) are invoked read with Rule 21, which deals with fake Input Tax Credit and non-conducting of the business from the address mentioned to the GST Authorities.
The Appellate Authority has dismissed the Appeal since the Petitioner could not produce any documentary evidence in support of his submission although he undertook before both the authorities and in the previous round of litigation before this Court to produce all the documents.
The Commissioner (Appeal) has followed the decision in the case of State of Karnataka vs Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt Ltd [2023 (3) TMI 533 - SUPREME COURT] and the said decision read with Section 155 of the CGST Act requires the Petitioner to discharge the onus of proving the claim which in the instant case, the Petitioner has miserably failed.
Conclusion - No interference is required by this Court since there is no documentary evidence furnished before the authorities in support of the claim that the transactions of purchase and sale are genuine. There are concurrent findings of fact by both the authorities that on physical verification of the supplier, they were found to be non-existence and, therefore, consequently, the ITC claim was bogus. No perversity is brought to our notice in the impugned order.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1790
Challenge to orders passed by the respondent-Department, whereby, claim of ITC was reversed/negatived - the petitioner would submit that the case in SRI GANAPATHI PANDI INDUSTRIES [2024 (10) TMI 1631 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] will hold good for the present Writ Petition also and hence, prayed to dispose of the Writ Petition.
HELD THAT:- The impugned original order dated 26.03.2024 and the summary order dated 30.05.2024 are quashed insofar as it relates to the claim made by the petitioner for ITC which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017 but, within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16 (5) of the said Act - Therefore, the respondent-Department is restrained from initiating any proceedings against the petitioners by virtue of the impugned order based on the issue of limitation.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1789
Challenge to assessment order - Cancellation of E way bills towards Inward/Outward activities - Non supplies of E way bills - ITC reversal of Wind Mill Maintenance - Non produce of Bank receipts - petitioner is ready and willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 23.08.2024 is set aside.
The petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed taxes as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1788
Proper service of SCN - SCN was issued to the petitioner by uploading the same in the GST Portal without serving physical copy of the same to the petitioner - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is stated by the petitioner that since the impugned assessment order was uploaded in the GST portal, without serving the physical copy of the same to the petitioner, the petitioner was unaware of the same and only after the receipt of the recovery notice from the 3rd Respondent, the petitioner came to know of the impugned assessment order and therefore they could not file appeal within time.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the reasons assigned by the petitioner for delay in filing the appeal appears to be genuine. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 03.06.2025 is set aside and condone the delay of 129 days in filing the Appeal before the 2nd Respondent - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1787
Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte assessment order - period 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 - HELD THAT:- This writ application may be disposed of in similar terms as has been done by a learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Maa Sunaina Construction Private Limited Vs. The Union of India and Others [2025 (1) TMI 120 - PATNA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'As of now pre-deposit has been reduced to “ten per cent” but however, the same is made effective only from 01.11.2024. It is an admitted position that the GST Tribunals have not been constituted as yet and there is no possibility of an appeal being filed prior to 01.11.2024. In such circumstance we direct that the assessee on payment of “ten per cent” of the tax amounts in dispute shall be entitled to stay of recovery till the Tribunal is constituted and an appeal is filed within such term as provided therein.'
Both sides agree that the subject matter of the present writ application and the issues raised by the petitioner in the present writ application may be agitated before the Tribunal as and when constituted by the respondent authorities.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1786
Challenge to order passed u/s 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017 - impugned order has resulted in double jeo pardi - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that Form GST DRC 05 is issued under Rule 142(3) of the respective Rules for intimation of conclusion of proceedings. The order that has to be passed in pursuant to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 is normally in GST DRC 07.
It appears to be the same mistake in the order that was passed earlier on 04.10.2023 in GST DRC 05. In any event, the fact of the matter is that the impugned order has been passed on 27.08.2024, without the petitioner participating in the adjudication proceedings initiated vide DRC 01, dated 20.12.2023.
It appears to be some overlap which needs to be looked into. Hence, the above impugned orders are quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to pass fresh orders on merit and in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1785
Tax liability of petitioner for the tax period 2017-18 - petitioner has given superficial reply, however, not clearly explained the position in the reply - HELD THAT:- In terms of the Sl.No.11 to N/N. 11/2017-Central tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, prima facie, there is an indication that the tax has to be paid on Reverse Charge Basis on the recipient, however, this aspect has not been considered in the impugned order.
Considering the consistent view of this Court, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as corrigendum/addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order.
Petition disposed off.
........
|
9911796707
