|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 1456 Records
-
2024 (1) TMI 1116
Clandestine/ fraudulent operations - CENVAT Credit - fake invoices - credit availed without actually receiving the material as shown in the invoices issued by M/s V.K Metal Works, Jammu - HELD THAT:- On the preliminary objections raised by the Department that as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s V.K Metal Works is under challenge before Hon’ble High Court of Jammu Kashmir & Ladakh, the present proceedings should be kept in abeyance, it is found that, as submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant, there is no stay granted by Hon’ble High Court of Jammu Kashmir & Ladakh; Tribunal has decided cases of similar customers of M/s V.K Metal Works even after the issue was under challenge as there was no stay granted - no case has been made by the Department to keep this case pending.
Department has issued a show-cause notice to the appellants on the excisability of “copper keeth” thereby indirectly accepting that there was manufacturing activity and that the Department cannot take the stand that there was no manufacturing activity. It is also found that the Principal Bench relied on the case of R.A Castings Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (6) TMI 197 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] upheld by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court [2010 (9) TMI 669 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and by Hon’ble Supreme Court [2011 (1) TMI 1302 - SC ORDER] and decided the case in favour of M/s V.K Metal Works.
The Tribunal decided the case of M/s Rachna Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (11) TMI 973 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] in favour of the appellants therein, similarly placed as the present appellant observing that Even in the abovereferred case of M/s V.K. Metals and Others, the clandestine removal findings stands set aside by the Tribunal by observing that there has to be shown the receipt of raw material, utilization of the same, actual manufacture of the finished goods, the evidence of transportation and identity of the buyers etc. Inasmuch as nothing has been shown in the present case by the Revenue, we find no reasons to confirm the demand.
It is found that the facts of the present case are identical and the proceedings emanated from the same investigation against M/s V.K Metal Works. There is no reason as to why a different view can be taken in this case. Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1115
Imposition of penalty u/s 10(b) r.w.s 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - unauthorized use of Form C - bona fide belief - existence of mens rea or not - burden to prove on Revenue - HELD THAT:- In the present case, purchases of valves, regulator, PP caps, aluminum seal, etc. are not mentioned in the registration certificate and use of Form – C could not be demonstrated by the revisionist that the same are covered under the word “container” was under bonafide belief or under mistake of fact as on remand, notice was issued, but the revisionist failed to bring on record any cogent materials to justify the bonafide belief and therefore, a finding of fact was recorded by the assessing authority, which was not challenged by the revisionist, either in the first appeal or in second appeal. Only legal submission on mens rea was raised. Even otherwise, the word “container” mentioned in registration certificate cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be connected with the items purchased by the revisionist, i.e., valves, regulator, PP caps, Aluminum Seal, etc.
The impugned judgements & orders passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal in these revisions do not require any interference by this Court as there is no infirmity in the same.
Both the revisions are dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1114
Condonation of delay of 1365 days in filing the appeal - sufficient reason for delay or not - contrary to the decision of Supreme court in the matter of OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL VERSUS LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT] or not - HELD THAT:- The delay is explained by the authorities and the appeal is required to be heard by the Tribunal, as so much time has already elapsed - also, the hearing of the appeal should be expedited. Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to hear and decide the appeal within four months from date.
The revision petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1113
Levy of penalty u/s 54(1) (14) of the U.P. VAT Act - Form- 38 was not downloaded and printed from the official website but has been taken as screenshot - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the record, it reveals that earlier also, screenshots were taken of the Form- 38 from the website of the department and three forms were submitted with the department to which no objection were raised, but in the case in hand, the goods were in question were intercepted at Kanpur and penalty proceedings were initiated against the revisionist. Since, earlier four Forms bearing No.00015116, 00015118 & 00015119 were submitted to which no objection was raised about the intention of the revisionist to evade the tax, it is clear that the revisionist was no intention to evade the payment of tax to the State Government. Further, there is no specific finding recorded by the authorities which shows the intention of the revisionist to evade the tax.
This Court in the case of Protein Impax Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad [2022 (3) TMI 859 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that in absence of any cogent finding as to intention to evade tax, levy of penalty under Section 54(1) (14) of the Act, is unsustainable.
Earlier on three occasions, the department has accepted Form-38, which was taken as screenshot, without raising any objection, hence in the present case, it cannot be attributed any intention of the revisionist to evade from paying the tax.
The question of law is answered in favour of the revisionist and against the opposite party - the revision is Allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1112
Maintainability of petition - HELD THAT:- The issues involved in this writ petition cannot be adjudicated without exchange of affidavits by the parties and there is no scope of passing any interim order in the matter since the relief asked for, if allowed, will amount to allowing the writ petition itself.
Let the respondents file affidavit in opposition within four weeks; reply thereto, if any, to be filed by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter - List the matter for final hearing in the monthly list of February, 2024.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1111
Liability to pay interest of the GST amount, which was routinely deposited into the Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL) within the due date - the case of the Department is that the deposit of tax in Electronic Cash Ledger would not amount to payment of tax and would tantamount to failure to remit GST in time, for which interest liability would be attracted. - HELD THAT:- A reading of the above provisions will reveal that every registered person, who is required to furnish the returns under Sub- Section (1) of Section 39 of the Act, shall pay the tax dues to the Government as per such return not later than the last date, on which he is required to furnish such return. Thus, it is clear that not later than the last date of filing of Form GSTR-3B, i.e., on or before 20th of every month, the tax should have been paid to the Government. The last date for payment of tax to Government would be the date not later than the last date on which he is required to furnish the monthly return. Thus, for payment of tax to Government filing the monthly returns is not the matter but the last date for furnishing the monthly return is important. Thus, whether the monthly return is filed in time or not but the GST has to be remitted not later than the last date for filing the monthly returns.
How the tax to be paid to the Government? - HELD THAT:- For the payment of tax to the account of Government, the filing of GSTR-3B is immaterial, which means either with or without filing of monthly returns, the tax can be remitted to the Government. Therefore, no interpretation can be made as held in the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Jharkand High Court rendered in M/S. RSB TRANSMISSIONS INDIA LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE, ADITYAPUR – V RANGE, JAMSHEDPUR GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI [2022 (11) TMI 483 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] stating that no payment of tax can be made until the filing of GSTR-3B, which is against the provisions of Section 39(1) and 39(7) of the Act and thus, the said finding would render a disastrous consequences in utilisation of GST collections by the exchequers. Merely, for the default on the part of a registered person in filing the GSTR-3B, the utilisation of tax amount, which was already deposited into the account of Government, cannot be postponed.
In the present case, the GST amount has been paid by generating GST PMT-06 before the due date without any delay. If any amount is deposited after due date, for the said amount alone, the payment of interest would arise in terms of provisions of Section 50(1) of the Act.
Once GSTR-3B is filed, the total amount of tax would be quantified, by which it would be ascertained about the discharge of tax liabilities. In terms of Rule 61(1), the registered person has to file the monthly return on or before 20th of succeeding month - the interpretation, which was made with regard to the deposit made to the PLA, is squarely applicable to the present case, since in the present case, the issue is with regard to the ECL, which is equivalent to PLA.
The impugned letter issued by the 1st respondent impugned order passed by the 1st respondent are liable to be quashed - petition allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1110
Validity of an assessment order imposing tax liability, interest and penalty - Seeking an opportunity to be heard - HELD THAT:- The petitioner did not respond either to the intimation in Form GST ASTM- 10 or to the show cause notice in Form GST-DRC-01. In addition, the petitioner did not attend the personal hearing. The explanation of the petitioner is that the consultant did not keep the petitioner informed. The consultant, in turn, states that the notices were not available on the tab relating to regular returns and were instead accessible only through the tab relating to additional notices.
While these explanations are not wholly convincing, the fact remains that a registered person carrying on a small business did not have the opportunity to respond to the claim made by the tax department with regard to the discrepancy between the returns in Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B. Solely for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order calls for interference.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1109
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - compounding of offences - criminal conspiracy of evasion of tax - false and fabricated documents - HELD THAT:- A strong apprehension has been shown by prosecution that if the applicant is released on bail then, there is possibility of tampering with the evidence and fleeing away from the trial.
The present application is filed before submission of the chargesheet and the investigation is not yet completed and the apprehension has been shown by prosecution that if the applicant is released on bail then, there is possibility of tampering with the evidence and hampering with the witnesses, which would affect the trial. Therefore considering the nature of offence, role attributed to the applicant, played by him and past antecedents of the applicant similar in nature, the present application deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, the present application is rejected.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1108
Violation of principles of natural justice - reasonable opportunity not provided to petitioner - Exemption from payment of GST - services provided in relation to hotel accommodation if the tariff is below Rs. 1,000/- - petitioner is an intermediary - HELD THAT:- The non-consideration of the reply to the show cause notice certainly prejudices the petitioner and denies the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to establish its position. On that sole ground, the respective impugned order calls for interference.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the orders impugned herein are quashed. As a corollary, these matters are remanded for reconsideration by the assessing officer.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1107
Levy of Penalty order u/s 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - evasion of tax - Quantum of penalty - HELD THAT:- It is found that neither in the show cause notice nor in the order under Section 129(3) there was any allegation that non downloading of E-way Bill-02 was done with intention to evade tax. In spite of the same, the respondent authorities have chosen to impose maximum penalty whereas the law provides for lesser penalty under Section 122 of the Act.
No case is made out with regard to evasion of tax.
The impugned order dated December 23, 2018 and the order dated January 10, 2018 are quashed and set-aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1106
Levy of penalty - evasion of tax - Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is found that neither in the show cause notice nor in the order under Section 129(3) there was any allegation that non downloading of E-way Bill-01 was done with intention to evade tax. In spite of the same, the respondent authorities have chosen to impose maximum penalty whereas the law provides for lesser penalty under Section 122 of the Act.
No case is made out with regard to evasion of tax - petition allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1105
Seeking permission for withdrawal of petition - petitioner submits that the time limit for filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order in Exhibit P-1 has been extended till 31.01.2024 and the petitioner would like to withdraw the writ petition and take recourse to remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 against the impugned order.
HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1104
Recovery of tax paid - Rectification of inadvertent error in filing of GSTR-1 - ITC could not have been disallowed to Mahindra Logistics on the ground of non-reflection of the invoices in FORM-GSTR-2A of Mahindra Logistics - HELD THAT:- There appears to be an inadvertent error on the part of the petitioner in filing return in FORM-GSTR-01 and due to such defective return being filed, the Petitioner contends that it is not in a position to recover the amount from Mahindra Logistics.
The appropriate course of action for the Petitioner is to file an Application for rectification of the returns which were filed in FORM GSTR- 01 and, more particularly, considering the observations as made by the Division bench in STAR ENGINEERS (I) PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX-GST. [2023 (12) TMI 729 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], and after an order is passed on the Rectification Application, the inter-se issue between the Petitioner and Mahindra Logistics can be taken up by the Petitioner and appropriate claim can be raised subject to the outcome of the Rectification Application.
Petition is disposed off with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the department by filing a Rectification Application so as to seek rectification of FORM-GSTR-01 for the period in question, which is permitted to be filed either through online or manual means within a period of four weeks from today.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1103
Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim - Denial of ITC for non-payment to suppliers exceeding 180 days - petitioner submits that the impugned order came to be issued on the basis of the total trade payables of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Under the Companies Act, 2013, every company is required to file financial statements in respect of its entire operations and there is no provision for filing State-specific financial statements. However, the petitioner has submitted a certificate from a Chartered Accountant stating that the trade payables attributable to the State of Tamil Nadu are Rs. 1816.48 millions. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner would provide all the invoices issued by the suppliers with regard to the aggregate sum of Rs. 1816.48 millions.
The assessing authority has clearly not applied its mind before drawing the conclusions - the impugned order is liable to be and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the matter is remanded for reconsideration by the assessing authority.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1102
Initiation of proceedings under section 74 of CGST Act - Wrong availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- When the appeals were taken up for consideration, after making some arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant ultimately, submitted that it would suffice, if the appellant is granted liberty to file statutory appeals before the appellate authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Granting such liberty to the appellant, both the appeals stand disposed of.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1101
Wrong availment and utilization of ITC - ITC claim was rejected for non submission of documents - HELD THAT:- The petitioner did not submit any documents relating to movement of goods, mode of transport and physical movement of goods, and that the proposal for levy of tax, penalty and interest is found to be in order as a consequence.
The petitioner has placed on record invoices and E-way bills relating to the relevant purchases. The E-way bills contain details of not only the products purchased by the petitioner but also the vehicles used for the movement of goods. The impugned order does not contain any discussion on the documents produced by the petitioner to corroborate the assertion that legitimate purchases were made and point out deficiencies or inadequacies. On that ground, the impugned order calls for interference. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 03.07.2023 are quashed.
These matters are remanded for re-consideration. The second respondent is directed to re-consider the matter and issue a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1100
Grant of regular bail - wrongful gain by input tax credit - HELD THAT:- As per prosecution story, applicant is having a firm namely Surajmal Chandmal and he has evadeded payment of tax of Rs. 7,11,953.61/-. Applicant is in jail since 07.10.2023. During course of argument, it cannot be pointed out that firm Agrawal Axim belongs to applicant. Applicant is ready to deposit Rs. 7,11,953/- under protest before the trial Court. Applicant is an income taxpayer. There is no likelihood that applicant will abscond from law. Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on aforesaid condition on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his regular appearance before Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of trial - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1099
Refusing to revoke revocation of licence granted to the appellant under the GST Act - HELD THAT:- There is a categorical finding that at the time when the registration was obtained, the appellant had uploaded the electricity payment receipt, which was found to be a forged document and as also the rental agreement. Those fraud vitiate every solemn act. Therefore, the Appellate Authority was well-justified in dismissed the appeal petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same order.
The appeal as well as the writ petition are dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1098
Denial to grant any interim relief - audit authority has failed to take note of the submission made by the assessee - subject matter is pending adjudication by the CGST Authority - HELD THAT:- The audit wing of the State GST Authority ought to keep the matter abeyance so far as the discrepancy note is concerned. The authority now has issued a show cause notice dated 29.12.2023 since the discrepancy note no. 3 pointed out by the Audit Wing of the State GST authority is the subject matter of adjudication of CGST Authority. Pursuant to the show cause notice dated 28.03.2023 the audit wing of the SGST Authority should not proceed.
The appeal along with the connected application and the writ petition are disposed of by directing the audit wing of the SGST Authority to keep in abeyance all proceedings in respect of the discrepancy note no. 3 alone including the show cause notice dated 29.12.2023 and abide by the adjudication order to be passed by the CGST Authority, namely, the fourth respondent on the show cause notice dated 28.03.2023.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1097
Grant of regular bail - availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit without actual receipts of goods - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SANDEEP GOYAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2020 (5) TMI 240 - SC ORDER] considering the submission of learned counsel for applicant in that case that the applicant therein has already been undergone one year and eight months imprisonment, the maximum sentence to be awarded is of five years, has refused to allow the application/appeal filed by applicant therein and disposed of the SLP observing that the State shall make endeavour to complete the investigation within three months. In the case at hand, the applicant was arrested only on 30.09.2023, the matter is still under investigation.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allegations made against the applicant, evidence collected by the prosecution, seriousness of the offence and further considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Goel, present case is not found to be a fit case to enlarge applicant on bail.
This application filed under Section 439 of CrPC is rejected.
............
|
9911796707
