|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 3788 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 466 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Levy of GST - Henna leaves and powder - will attract GST at the rate of 5% or 18%? - It is argued that now the respondents without following the procedure as laid under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has straight away started proceedings against the petitioner under Section 132 of the CGST Act, which are illegal - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable in four weeks.
- 2020 (10) TMI 465 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Discrepancy in the return submitted - amount of ₹ 20,31,000/- was not reflected in the return filed by respondent no. 3 - Petitioner was asked to explain the discrepancies found in the return. But instead of appearing before the authority, he has approached this Court - HELD THAT:- The issue at hand is required to be addressed at the level of the respondent no. 2 in the first place. The impugned notice dated 4th May, 2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax GST Act, Jamshedpur Circle reflects some discrepancies in the return filed by the petitioner. Petitioner and respondent no. 3 both are ready and bound to cooperate in the inquiry. Respondent no. 2 shall endeavour to conclude the inquiry within a reasonable time preferably 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner and respondent no. 3 both should cooperate in the matter. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (10) TMI 464 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Evasion of GST - Prohibition order - direction that the dealer not to remove or part with or otherwise deal with the seized goods - primary contention of the petitioner is that there was absolutely no reason to believe that the petitioner had indulged in suppression or otherwise contravened any of the provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, bare assertion has been made that the impugned proceedings were initiated based on the intelligence developed by CGST (HPU), Madurai that the petitioner is evading GST by misdeclaring the goods while importing. But not a scrap of material was produced before the court. The recitals set out in the order of seizure and the order of prohibition indicate that the formation of the requisite belief is predicated on the scrutiny of the books of account, registers and documents found during th....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 463 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Filing of Form Trans 1 in order to avail the unutilized credit - transitional credit - case of Revenue is that since the time line for submitting these forms were not maintained by the Assessee, and no such evidence was produced by them, the benefit of credit cannot be availed, and submitting of manual declaration in Tran-1, as done with the communication dated 6 February 2018, cannot be accepted - HELD THAT:- The Assessee had been making bona fide efforts to upload his declaration Form Tran 1. However, having faced technical glitches in the same, he was not only redirected to the help desk of the GST Department in the first communication dated 28 December 2017, where his request was registered as ID No.20171228912950, but the same does not appear to have been responded at all. Instead of solving the problem of their own infrastructure an....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 435 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Recovery of unpaid GST - case of the department was that the petitioner was selling packaged marked rice with registered trademark which activity, after 22.09.2017 was subject to Central as well as State GST which the petitioner had not paid - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the petitioner has raised number of disputed questions of facts about the nature of its activities and the manner in which the petitioner was selling rice after 22.09.2017. It is not possible for this Court, nor even necessary to examine these disputed questions of facts acting as a first appellate authority in a writ petition. For example, the petitioner, as noted, had contended that the segregation of the stock of rice in different qualities was for internal purpose and not for marking at the time of sale. When the raiding party had found stock of packaged rice car....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 434 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA
Classification of goods - rate of tax - renting of e-bikes(Miracle), bicycles(Move) without operator - to be classified under the SAC 9973, Leasing or rental services without operator or otherwise? - benefit of Sl.No.17 (viia) of Notification No.11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as amended - HELD THAT:- It is observed, from the applicant’s interpretation of law, that the applicant construed the amendment to the rate notification under Notification No. 20/2019-CT(R) dated 30.09.2019 as that of the amendment to the classification, which is incorrect. The classification of the services does not change but the rate of tax can be changed by the rate notification. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is involved in renting of e-bikes (Miracle) & bicycles (Move), which are meant for transportation and hence are cover....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 433 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Demand of interest and penalty - the contention of the petitioner is essentially that she must be permitted to avail the option envisaged under Section 74 without paying the interest and penalty amounts that are stipulated as conditional payments for avoiding the show cause notice envisaged under the said provision - HELD THAT:- The contention of the petitioner that she should be exempted from the requirement of paying interest and penalty while availing the option of payment of tax for the purposes of avoiding the show cause notice cannot be accepted. The scheme of making a payment of tax together with interest and 15% of the amount as penalty envisaged under Section 74 is for the purposes of enabling an assessee to avoid the show cause notice contemplated under the said provision. What is offered to the petitioner under the provision is....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 432 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Direction to the respondents to supply copies of the seized documents to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Mr. Harpreet Singh, senior standing counsel for the respondent accepts notice. He states that the photocopies of the seized documents shall be supplied by Superintendent of CGST, Anti-Evasion, Group-IV to the petitioner. - Accordingly directions issued.
- 2020 (10) TMI 431 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - Validity of SCN - case of petitioner is that without fixing a date for hearing and without waiting for any reply to be filed by the petitioner, the cancellation order was passed on 30.07.2020 whereby registration of the petitioners with GST department was cancelled - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the same indicates that to such show cause notice no response can be given by any assessee. The show cause notice is as vague as possible and does not refer to any particular facts much less point out so as to enable the noticee to give his reply. - We are not entering into the merits of the impugned order as we are convinced that the show cause notice itself cannot be sustained for the reasons already recorded above. Therefore, the cancellation of registration resulting from t....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 430 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - request to redress the grievance - according to petitioner, grievance in Grievance redressal portal of GST was not solved and was closed without doing anything - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is disposed off by issuing direction to the 2nd respondent to decide representation Ext.P5 dated 06.02.2020 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
- 2020 (10) TMI 429 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing returns - Rejection of refund claim - rejection on finding that the returns claiming the input tax credit had not been filed within time - HELD THAT:- Probably on account of the fact that Ext.P4 order of the assessing authority had not been carried in appeal by the petitioner, the 1st respondent, when considering the delay condonation application preferred by the petitioner, passed Ext.P2 order refusing to condone the delay - When the matter came up for admission before this Court, and on a request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was permitted to prefer an appeal against Ext.P4 order of the Assessing Officer so as to keep the issue of belated filing of return and condonation thereof alive. The petitioner has accordingly prefered Ext.P5 appeal before the Joint Commissioner [Appeals], Ernaku....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 374 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - detention of the vehicle was on the ground that the consignment was not accompanied by a valid e-way bill - Section 129 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- The detention cannot be said to be unjustified. Taking note of the request of the petitioner for permission to clear the goods and the vehicle on furnishing a Bank guarantee, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to clear the goods and the vehicle on furnishing a Bank guarantee for the amounts demanded in Ext.P9 order.
- 2020 (10) TMI 373 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - allegation that the detention was not justified since it was for reasons totally unconnected with the vehicle, and had more to do with incomplete information furnished by the consignor of the goods - HELD THAT:- The goods have been detained on account of various defects in the documents that accompanied the transportation of the goods as per the provisions of the GST Act and Rules. In that view of the matter, I do not see the detention to be unjustified. Taking note of the plea of the petitioner for an expeditious release of the vehicle that is detained, I direct that if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amounts demanded in Ext.P5 notice, then the 3rd respondent shall release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (10) TMI 372 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods alongwith the vehicle - it is the case of the petitioner that the owner of the goods is now not traceable and under the said circumstances, although proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act have been completed against the petitioner, she must be permitted to get a release of the vehicle on furnishing a security for the redemption fine that would be imposed on the vehicle in lieu of confiscation - HELD THAT:- There are force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that in view of an order having been passed under Section 130 of GST Act, the ownership of the vehicle now stands vested with the State Government as per the statutory mandate, and if the petitioner seeks a release of the vehicle, pending appellate proceedings that she wishes to pursue against the order passed under Section 130, she would....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 371 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Validity of inquiry letter - legality of Explanation to Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - exclusion of 'telecommunication towers' from the meaning of the term 'Plant and Machinery'- Input Tax Credit on construction of Immovable Property. HELD THAT:- This Court is not inclined to interfere with the inquiry letter dated 29th July, 2019 as well as the proceedings initiated under the said letter. However, this Court shall examine the legality and validity of Explanation to Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act along with similar writ petitions, i.e. BAMBOO HOTEL AND GLOBAL CENTRE (DELHI) PVT LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [2019 (5) TMI 1805 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (7) TMI 696 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. It is clarified that there is no stay of the letter dated 29th July, 2019.
- 2020 (10) TMI 307 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any coercive actions - period 01st January, 2019 to 31st March, 2019 - 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], 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 of ₹ 37,85,342/- in six equated installments commencing 15th October, 2020. The interest amount directed to be paid by the respondents is stayed till further orders. List on 03rd November, 2020 along with the connected batch of matters.
- 2020 (10) TMI 259 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Submission of GST TRAN-2 return in relation to Part 7A either electronically or manually in terms of the statement made before this Court earlier by the respondent authorities - grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of specific direction by this Court to allow the petitioner to submit GST TRAN-2 either electronically or manually, the authorities have not allowed to file electronically or manually the same on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to show that there was genuine difficulty on the part of the petitioner to upload the form. HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that if there is a provision made for filing returns electronically and if because of certain technical glitches uploading could not be done in time, on that ground the concerned individual or firm ought not to be put to a disadvantageous position - It....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 258 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Withdrawal of challenge to vires of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The effect of this relief being not pressed would be that the transfer application moved by the department before the Supreme Court for all such matters pending in different High Courts challenging the vires of the aforesaid provision would not be applicable in the case of this petition. The application is allowed - this petition be listed for final disposal on 12th October 2020, the date agreed by the learned counsel for the parties.
- 2020 (10) TMI 257 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Cancellation of registration - Validity of SCN - case of petitioner is that without fixing a date for hearing and without waiting for any reply to be filed by the petitioner, the cancellation order was passed on 31.07.2020 whereby registration of the petitioners with GST department was cancelled - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the same indicates that to such show cause notice no response can be given by any assessee. The show cause notice is as vague as possible and does not refer to any particular facts much less point out so as to enable the noticee to give his reply. We are not entering into the merits of the impugned order as we are convinced that the show cause notice itself cannot be sustained for the reasons already recorded above. Therefore, the cancellation of registration resulting from the said show-cause notice also cannot be sustained. Petition allowed.
- 2020 (10) TMI 196 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural justice - late filing of return - intent to evade or not - it is the case of petitioner is that various aspects have not been dealt with or discussed by the Appellate Authority though in the impugned Order he has referred to these grounds which the Petitioner has raised in their Appeal - HELD THAT:- It is true that the Appellate Authority in the impugned Order has reproduced most of the grounds that the Petitioner has raised in their Appeal. However, when we look into the impugned Order, all what is reflected is that the Appellate Authority has literally considered only the factual aspects of the case, that is, the date on which the Petitioner was supposed to submit their return and the defaults on the part of the Petitioner and the factual details in respect of the statutory provisions as is required. In addition, t....... + More
........
|
