|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1658 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1518
Seeking to quash the order passed by the authority under Section 77 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - seeking to issue direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to participate in the proceeding of the appeal, which has been rejected without giving opportunity of hearing to it - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner preferred appeal, but, however, without complying the requirement of law by depositing 10% of the tax. In that view of the matter, the order dated 28.12.2022 and 15.09.2023 passed by the authority under Section 16 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 vide Annexure-2 & 4 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh by passing appropriate order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, subject to its depositing of 10% of the tax demanded.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1517
Challenge to order-in-original - wrong availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - petitioner's reply was not taken into consideration - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the respondent proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had reversed the ITC in the GSTR-9 return and that the GSTR-9 return was unavailable.
On perusing the reply of the petitioner, there is no assertion therein that the ITC was reversed in the GSTR-9 return. Thus, there appears to be a disconnect between the reply and the findings recorded in the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order calls for interference.
The impugned order dated 27.12.2023 is quashed subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a detailed reply to the show cause notice with in the aforesaid period by enclosing all relevant documents - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1516
Challenge to assessment order - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the service tax demand - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner averred that the services of a consultant were availed of to handle service tax compliances and that she was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order because she was not kept informed by such consultant. It also appears that the petitioner was running a beauty parlour. While the explanation of the petitioner is not totally convincing, it appears that the tax demand against a person carrying on business on a very small scale has been confirmed without such person having been heard.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the petitioner remitting 20% of the tax demand with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice with in the aforesaid period - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1515
Challenge to impugned order of the appellate authority under the CGST Act confirming the order of the adjudicating authority - appellable order before the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Let the respondents file affidavit-in-opposition with in four weeks, petitioner to file reply there to, if any, with in two weeks thereafter.
List this matter for final hearing in the monthly list of June, 2024.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1514
Dismissal of petition - Rejection of appeal both on the ground of not filing such appeal online and for not making the pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- The order in original is dated 09.03.2023. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by entertaining the present writ petition because the appellate authority would not be in a position to entertain an appeal under Section 107 of applicable GST statutes.
Petition is disposed of by leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the order in original by way of writ petition before this Court. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1513
Time limitation of filing appeal - rejection of petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay - HELD THAT:- The facts on record indicate clearly that the appeal was filed on 16.02.2024, whereas the condonable period expired on 13.02.2024. Consequently, the appellate authority cannot be faulted for rejecting the appeal. However, considering the extent of delay beyond the condonable period, it is an appropriate case to direct the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal on merits.
The impugned order is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits without going into the question of limitation provided such appeal is re-presented by the petitioner with in a maximum period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1512
Challenge to assessment order - relevant exemption Notification was not taken into consideration - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record the reply dated 22.12.2023 to the show cause notice. The said reply does not contain any indication that any documents were annexed thereto. In the absence of documentary proof of the nature of services provided by the petitioner, it was clearly not possible for the assessing officer to arrive at a conclusion with regard to the claimed exempted nature of services. It should, however, be recognized that the tax liability was confirmed without considering the contention of the petitioner that the relevant services are exempted. Solely for this reason, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, the impugned order calls for interference.
The impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2023 is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit additional documents in support of the contentions raised in the reply with in the aforementioned period - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1511
Challenge to assessment order - ITC availed in excess - HELD THAT:- There is contradiction between the returns relied on by the petitioner and those relied on by the respondent. For the just determination of this controversy, this aspect needs to be re-examined. Solely for that reason, the impugned order calls for interference.
The impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to once again submit the GSTR 3B and GSTR 9 returns before the assessing officer within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1510
Challenge to order and recovery notice related to discrepancies in GST returns - petitioner asserts that he was unaware of the notices and the impugned order until receipt of information from the Indian Overseas Bank with regard to the attachment of his bank account - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has asserted that he is 74 years old and was unwell from September, 2023 onwards. He has also placed on record medical certificates relating to his ill health and that of his daughter. The impugned order discloses that the petitioner was not heard before such order was issued. The petitioner is not entirely blameless because the petitioner was under an obligation to monitor the GST portal continually.
In these circumstances, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to show cause notice dated 12.07.2023 with in the aforesaid period - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1509
Seeking cancellation of the GST registration with effect from 30.05.2023 - HELD THAT:- Petitioner applied for cancellation of the GST registration on 30.05.2023. However, the application was rejected by an order dated 07.12.2023. Thereafter petitioner applied again on 14.12.2023 on which a query was raised on 19.01.2024 which as per the petitioner has been duly replied to, however, the application has not yet been disposed of.
The petition is disposed of directing the respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of the GST registration with in a period of four weeks from today.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1508
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner's reply to the SCN has not been considered while passing the impugned order - invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The ground urged in the present writ petition that some of the arguments or some of the contentions raised in reply to the show cause notice has not been considered by the Assessing Officer, cannot be enforced by this Court while invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
There aee no no substance in the present writ petition, which is here by dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1507
Challenge to assessment order - petitioner asserts that he was unaware of these notices and the impugned assessment orders since they were uploaded on the portal without being served on the petitioner through any other mode - violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner agrees that the petitioner would remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand - HELD THAT:- The documents on record indicate that the assessment orders were preceded by an intimation and a show cause notice. The assessment orders also disclose that three opportunities were provided to the petitioner for a personal hearing in December 2023. As a registered person under applicable GST enactments, the petitioner is under an obligation to monitor the portal continually. Therefore, the explanation of the petitioner for non participation in proceedings is not convincing. However, the fact remains that the petitioner did not participate in proceedings and therefore could not place its objections on record with regard to the tax demand. Solely for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned assessment orders are interfered with albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned assessment orders are quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period with in a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1506
Rejection of petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of GST registration - HELD THAT:- In the case of M/S. SPARTA FOOD FACTORY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS SUPERINTENDENT OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS) [2024 (3) TMI 160 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], in substantially similar circumstances, the appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal on merits. In this case, the appeal was filed on 19.07.2023 with a delay of about 152 days. In the overall facts and circumstances, especially by taking note of the fact that the petitioner filed returns up to the date of cancellation and remitted taxes along with interest thereon, this is an appropriate case to direct the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits.
The appellate order impugned herein is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits with in a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1505
Taxable supply or not - salary paid to seconded employees - HELD THAT:- Since a prima facie case is made out and several High Courts granted interim relief and are also examining whether such an arrangement would qualify as a taxable supply, there shall be an interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order until the matter is heard next.
List the matter on 08.04.2024.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1504
Challenge to assessment order - alleged mismatch between the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns as also between the GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns - petitioner was unaware of the initiation of proceedings by issuing a notice in Form ASMT-10 followed by the intimation and show cause notice since such notices were uploaded on the "view additional notices and orders" tab of the GST portal - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As a registered person, the petitioner is under an obligation to monitor the GST portal continually. Therefore, the explanation that the petitioner was completely unaware of proceedings is not convincing. At the same time, it is noticeable that the confirmed demand relates to discrepancy between the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The GST Department issued multiple circulars to deal with this issue, since it is a recurrent issue. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner should be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice with in the aforementioned period - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1503
Challenge to assessment order - discrepancy between Form 26AS and the petitioner's returns - personal hearing was granted or not - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The documents on record clearly indicate that the assessment order was preceded by a show cause notice, which indicates that a personal hearing was offered. However, the assessment order also discloses that the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner is a civil works contractor and it is quite common for such civil work contractors to receive payments in the form of mobilization advances and against running account bills. The operative portion of the impugned assessment order clearly indicates that the tax liability was confirmed by disregarding the objections of the petitioner that the receipts in Form 26AS cannot be treated as the turnover.
In these circumstances, the interest of justice demands that the petitioner should be heard. Solely for this reason, the impugned assessment order warrants interference, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order in accordance with law with in a maximum period of two months thereafter.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1502
Alleged availment of fake input tax credit by the petitioner - threshold limit of 500 lakhs crossed or not - Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- As on today, there is no apprehension that the petitioner is being arrested by the respondent. However, it is made clear that if the respondent intends to arrest the petitioner, the respondent shall give 48 hours prior notice to the petitioner on his registered email.
The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court if the occasion arises.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1501
Power of review inherent in the court - modification of the directions of this Court - HELD THAT:- The order is recalled - Against statutory order, there is no question of representation for redressal of the petitioner’s grievance. Petitioner has remedy of Appeal/Review or Writ Petition is required to be examined.
The present M.J.C. petition stands allowed while restoring C.W.J.C. No. 6795 of 2020 on the file. Registry is hereby directed to list C.W.J.C. No. 6795 of 2020 before the concerned roster Bench for deciding the matter on merit.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1500
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1499
Levy of additional tax on vehicles misused - tax evasion and fraud against a Managing Director and an educational society - Section 3-A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. NSPIRA Management Services Private Limited since 2017 onwards. He is nothing to do with M/s. Narayana Educational Society. Going by the record, the accusation that has been made against M/s. Narayana Educational Society is that it is involved in tax evasion by altering vehicle purchase invoices and deceitfully misrepresented ownership to the Regional Transport Authority. The only accusation against the petitioner herein is that he being the Managing Director of M/s. NSPIRA Management Services Private Limited, has purchased the vehicles in the name of M/s. Narayana Educational Society and caused loss to the Government to a tune of Rs. 4.48 Crores by resorting to tax evasion.
On a perusal of the complaint further goes to show that the same has been given on 03.03.2024 and the same has been registered as a case in crime No.45 of 2024 of Balajinagar Police Station, SPSR Nellore district on 04.03.2024 at about 2.00 AM, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 471, 477-A read with 34 IPC. It is not the case of the prosecution that it is the petitioner herein, who has forged or altered the documents
Since the petitioner herein is Managing Director of M/s. NSPIRA Management Services Private Limited and has a fixed place of abode, the question of his absconding would not arise.
The police concerned are directed to conduct investigation without taking any coercive steps against the petitioner herein, for a period of six (6) weeks. The petitioner herein is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency - List the matter after four (4) weeks for filing counter affidavit.
............
|
9911796707
