|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 520 of 1466 Records
-
2024 (6) TMI 966
Valuation of imported goods - Slack Wax/Residue Wax - enhancement of value based on the NIDB data, based on assumptions and presumptions - no evidence that the value cited by the Appellant is not the transaction value - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of this Bench in DEEP JYOTI WAX TRADERS P. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CUS. (APPEALS) , KOLKATA [2018 (5) TMI 1917 - CESTAT KOLKATA] where it was held that 'it appears that the quantities of the slack wax and residue wax is based on the oil contents itself. The oil contained 20% - 40%, which is helpful in determination of the price of the wax. The price of oil in international market is not established. This aspect was not examined before rejecting the valuation declared by the appellants.'
The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the enhancement of values and reassessed all the bills of entry at declared values.
There are no reason to interfere with the detailed and considered order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 965
Benefit of Exemption from duty - Import of Palladium (II) Tetra Amine Sulphate, Nylon Resin and Gold plating Replenisher Solution - benefit of the said Notification was denied considering that due to realignment of the Tariff Heding under the Customs Tariff Act with effect from 01.01.2020, the amended Notification did not mention the correct tariff entry at Sl. No.1 of the said Notification - HELD THAT:- The Bills of Entry were assessed without extending the benefit of the Notification for the clearances made between January 2020 to 22.5.2020, hence the imported goods were cleared on payment of duty without the benefit of the said Notification. Subsequently, the said assessed Bills entry were challenged before learned Commissioner (A) and the learned Commissioner (A) allowed the benefit of exemption Notification, post issuance of the Corrigendum i.e., 27.5.2020 observing that the Corrigendum is prospective in nature and not applicable to clearances prior to the said date.
There are no merit in the order of the learned Commissioner (A) holding that Corrigendum dt. 27.05.2020 is prospective in nature. Consequently, the order of the learned Commissioner (A) denying the benefit of the Notification No.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 as amended, is hereby set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 964
Seeking dissolution of the company (in liquidation) - Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- It would be expedient to place reliance on the decision in MEGHAL HOMES (P.) LTD. VERSUS SHREE NIWAS GIRNI KK. SAMITI [2007 (8) TMI 447 - SUPREME COURT] whereby the Supreme Court inter alia held 'When the affairs of the Company have been completely wound up or the court finds that the Official Liquidator cannot proceed with the winding up of the Company for want of funds or for any other reason, the court can make an order dissolving the Company from the date of that order. This puts an end to the winding up process'.
In view of the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court in Meghal Homes and keeping in mind the import of Section 481 (1) of the Act as also the facts and circumstances of the present case, these liquidation proceedings warrant to be brought to an end. Therefore, the present application is allowed. The company (in liquidation) – M/s. Ravindra Dyechem Ltd., stands dissolved and the Official Liquidator is hereby discharged as its Liquidator.
-
2024 (6) TMI 963
Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. NCLT/NCLAT - Dispute related to Transfer of or title of shares - Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - sole reason for rejection of the plaint was that Clause 8 of the SPA operates as a bar on the City Civil Court entertaining the suit - Section 430 read with Sections 58 and 59 of The Companies Act, 2013.
Whether the appellant/plaintiff could have been ousted from the domain of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad by reason of Section 430 read with Sections 58 and 59 of The Companies Act, 2013? - HELD THAT:- Clause 8 of the SPA indicates that the parties agreed to refer any dispute arising from the SPA with regard to transfer of shares from the appellant to the respondents to arbitration. It was hence open to the Trial Court to take the point of arbitrability of the dispute and pass necessary orders consequent to such finding. The issue of arbitrability of the dispute is relevant since counsel for the appellant proposes to file an appropriate application for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The objection raised on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted since the question whether all the parties to the SPA are before the Court in the application filed under Section 11 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator may only be gone into at the time of hearing of the application as and when it is filed. It would be unwarranted to limit the options available to the appellant at this stage of the proceedings - the appropriate Court will decide the fate of such application as and when the appellant takes necessary steps in terms thereto.
Applicability of Section 430 read with Sections 58 and 59 of The Companies Act, 2013, to the suit filed by the appellant - HELD THAT:- The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which provides for rejection of the plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. The Trial Court relied on Clause 8 of the SPA to hold that the Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction and that the parties must therefore be relegated to arbitration - the view taken by the Trial Court cannot be agreed upon.
The NCLT is certainly not the proper forum to adjudicate on disputes of individual members with regard to transfer of or title to the shares. Section 430 or Sections 58 and 59 of The Companies Act, 2013, will hence not operate as a bar to the suit filed by the appellant in any manner howsoever.
In the present case, the stand taken on behalf of the respondents amounts to ousting the appellant from all available and competent fora. The Court certainly cannot be a mute spectator to the conduct of the respondent.
The impugned order dated 09.01.2023 is set aside since it is found that Section 430 read with Sections 58 and 59 of The Companies Act, 2013, have no application to the statements in the plaint and the relief sought for therein - application allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 962
Abeyance of arbitration proceedings due to moratorium - whether the impugned orders could be categorised as one, which are so perverse that the only possible conclusion would be that there is patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, in the Arbitrator in passing them, on the face of it, so that the writ jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked?
HELD THAT:- The ‘debt’, is the debt of SMC/ Tarun Kapoor as principal borrowers as well as of the guarantors. The ‘debt’, for the purpose of the moratorium, cannot be severed into the ‘debt’ of the principal borrower or for that matter of one of the guarantors on the one hand, and the debt of the other guarantors, in this case the legal heirs of the original respondent no. 4, Mr. B. L. Passi. Though it can be said that the liability of the original respondent no. 4, late Mr. B.L. Passi, was co-terminus with the principal borrower and the other guarantors, the liability of the present respondents, would be restricted to the assets of late Shri B.L. Passi, to the extent to which they would inherit the same. Be that as may, a distinction cannot be carved out, in respect of the ‘debt’, award in respect of which is claimed in the arbitration proceedings, for the purpose of continuation of the arbitral proceedings, between the liability of the principal borrower/ guarantor who have been granted a moratorium and the others who have not approached the NCLT, as the word ‘debt’, as used in Sec. 96 of the IB Code, has to be held to be the ‘debt’, in its entirety and not otherwise.
Sec. 138 of the I B Code and its effect as enumerated in Sec. 139, have no bearing upon the matter which is being considered in the present petition.
It is also necessary to note that there is no provision in the A & C Act, 1996 for splitting up of arbitration proceedings, by conceiving of a situation of the arbitration proceedings being stayed against some of the parties and going ahead against some. The arbitration proceedings will have to be decided in their entirety against all the parties and the entitlement of the claimant and the liabilities of the respective respondents, will be determined on the basis of evidence which may be led therein, which cannot be on a piecemeal basis.
The Arbitral Tribunal, in staying the arbitral proceedings for the duration of the moratorium as granted by the NCLP under Sec. 96 of the IB Code, has not done anything which can be termed as perverse, or would fall within the expression ‘patent illegality’, so that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked.
The petition is therefore not maintainable and is dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 961
Rejection of application - Auction Sale by a Liquidator in a Company Appeal - HELD THAT:- The fact which would emerge from records is that the status of the present Appellant(s) happens to be that of the Erstwhile Director / Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, as against whom the Order of Liquidation has already attained finality up to the Appellate stage before this Tribunal.
Looking in to the circumstances particularly when the Appellant(s) questions the Sale Certificate and Sale made by the Liquidator, it would have been apt on his part to have earlier approached the Liquidator himself at the time of publication of Sale inviting the bids from the Prospective Buyer, which was made by the Liquidator. Having not done so and having waited till the same was actuated upon by publication on 05.05.2022, this inaction would not give the liberty to the Appellant(s) to open a new chapter by putting a question to the Sale Certificate which has been affirmed by the Liquidator who has filed the IA No. 1301 dated 12.03.2024 and who has further proceeded to distribute the Funds of the Liquidation to satisfy the Claims raised.
In view of the stage at which the Interlocutory Application was filed, coupled with the fact that since the proceedings for Liquidation in the present case has already attained finality and his status being that of an Ex-Director / Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, the prayer made in his Application may not be taken as to be a ground to re-open the entire proceedings of Auction Sale, which was held as a consequence to the finality attached to the Order of Liquidation.
There are no merit in the instant appeal in question and the same would stand dismissed and the Impugned Order would stand affirmed - appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 960
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Operational Creditors - default in payment by the Corporate Debtor (CD) towards the Operational Creditor (OC) - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The invoices claimed by the OC dated back 2015 to 2019 while the present Application was filed on 20.02.2021. On perusal of the records, we do not find copy of any invoice produced by the OC in support of its claim of generating them except Annexure-H containing Computation of default prepared by the OC. The OC has also produced Annexure- C, containing particulars of invoices - A demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC has been issued to the CD dated 15.11.2019; however, no reply was received by it in spite of the same having been served on the CD.
Since the OC did not produce any invoice on record, it is difficult to ascertain the veracity of its claims and upon perusal of its computation of claims, it is found that all the invoices were raised during the period from 10.05.2015 to 31.12.2017. There is no evidence to suggest whether the alleged debt has been acknowledged by the CD. The bank account statement produced by the OC indicates receipt of Rs. 50,000/- from the CD 15.11.2019 - the law of limitation has come into play since the present Application is filed beyond the limitation period of three years from the date of alleged default as per the invoices. Thus, the issue of limitation is decided against the OC.
The OC has not succeeded in proving existence of any operational debt due and payable to it by the CD. Initiation of CIRP is a serious matter and it has severe consequences on a corporate entity. It is not to be allowed in a case which lacks any proof of debt and default committed by the CD - this Application fails as it does not satisfy the necessary requirements for admission under Section 9 of the IBC.
This Application u/s 9 of the IBC, filed by Mittal Polymers, the OC, for initiating CIRP in respect of Suvarna Additives Private Limited, the CD is rejected.
-
2024 (6) TMI 959
Valuation of service - transport/insurance charges received by the Appellant to be included in the gross value of service of erection and installation of transmission towers Service or otherwise - extended period of limitation.
Inclusion of transport/insurance charges received by the Appellant - HELD THAT:- The scope of work under the service contract was divided in two parts for which two separate considerations one for installation charges and other for transportation/insurance charges. Accordingly, under the service contract, the appellant used to provide transportation and insurance facility of the goods supplied to M/s PGCIL and further, used to provide service of installation of the transmission towers.
The activities carried out by the Appellant under these agreements are different and independent, and accordingly, to be classified separately. From the service contract it clearly appeared that parties have bifurcated the amount for service of erection & installation activity and separate amount for transportation/insurance separately. Therefore both the activities are defined separately in the impugned contract. Further the payments for the entire contract was not one composite fixed payment but it depends of each component individually.
In the case of Jain carrying Corporation v. CCE [2014 (12) TMI 506 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] the assessee entered into a contract for providing 3 different services - The Tribunal held that there is no justifiable reason to hold that the two services shall form part and parcel of 'cargo handling service' and the appeal was allowed.
The demand of service tax confirmed on the facility of arranging for transportation/ insurance of goods offered by the appellant to their customer has been wrongly classified by the revenue as activity of incidental or ancillary to ”Installation Services”. It is well settled position that in a transaction involving multiple supply of services, when an individual service is not merely a component ancillary to the overall supply but it is in itself distinct and independent supply, the same should not be classified as a component of single composite service - the demand of service tax confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner in the present matter is legally not sustainable.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The allegation of suppression of facts and invocation of the extended period of limitation is not correct and legal. Accordingly, the entire demand being beyond the normal period, the same is not sustainable on the ground of time bar also.
The impugned order is not sustainable and therefore is set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 958
Classification of service - Works Contract Service or not - work of erection of towers including route alignment, profiling, tower spotting, tower earthing, etc. - exemption under N/N. 11/2010-ST dated 27/2/2010 and N/N. 45/2010- ST Dated 20/7/2010 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, such service cannot be provided without the usage of goods. The items like cement, sand, stone and other consumables are very much part of the goods which in the normal course would be liable for VAT payment. Since the main contractor was paying the VAT on the whole, they were not separately paying the VAT. Therefore, there are enough merits in the Appellant‟s pleadings that the service should be classified under “Works Contract Service” only.
In order to put the rest the demands emanating on various services used for the transmission and distribution of electricity, N/N. 11/2010-ST dated 27/2/2010 and N/N. 45/2010- ST Dated 20/7/2010 were issued clearly exempting all the services from the Service Tax - the Appellant is also eligible to get the benefit of these notifications as has been held by the Delhi Bench in the case of M/S KAILASH DEVBUILD INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JABALPUR, MADHYA PRADESH [2023 (12) TMI 1010 - CESTAT NEW DELHI].
Appeal allowed on merits.
-
2024 (6) TMI 957
Penalty u/s 43 of the Value Added Tax Act - some transaction has not been recorded in books of accounts - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal while referring to section 42 (3) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act held that the Mobile Unit had not entered the business premises of the trader as there was no business activity going on. The Mobile Unit had only enquired regading the tax of trade in the business premises, which is not barred by the provisions contained under section 43 (3) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act.
Another ground taken by the assessee was that there was a family dispute and on account of this, the accounts books were kept at home, however, no evidence was led to show that there was any family dispute.
Subsequently and lastly, the ground taken by the learned counsel for the revisionist that as per the assessment order dated 10.11.2020, there is no contravention of the provisions of VAT Act, and in this backdrop the penalty order should be set aside, and in the alternative, he is praying that the penalty be reduced from 40% to 20% - this was the case of evasion of tax without maintaining the accounts books with regards to the entry of the goods, which was being carried in the truck. Hence, the assessment order cannot be made a ground to escape from the penalty proceedings, which was initiated on account of the non production of the account books with respect to carrying the goods from unregistered dealer.
There is no ground made out to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Since the revisionist has already paid the penalty under protest as receipt Annexure no. 2, no ground is further made out to reduce the penalty from 40% to 20% - Revision dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 956
Deemed sale - transfer of right to use within the provisions of Section 2 (40) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - upholding the assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, when the First Appellate Court had not decided the appeal on merits - deduction on account of salary of driver, cleaner and cost of diesel and lubricants - deductible from the gross amount received from the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation or not.
HELD THAT:- For determining the net turnover, Rule 15 (2) prescribes the amount, which can be deducted from the total amount received by a dealer, and it includes (a) the amount representing the sale value of the goods covered by Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; (b) the amount representing the value of the goods exempted under any of the provisions of the Act and; (c) the amount received as penalty for default in payment or as damages for any loss or damages caused to the goods by the person to whom such transfer was made, and as per the Explanation, the gross turnover meant the total amount received or receivable by a dealer in an assessment year as valueable consideration for the transfer of the right to use the goods whether such transfer was agreed to during that assessment year or earlier.
The Supreme Court in the case of M/S. K.P. MOZIKA VERSUS OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. [2024 (1) TMI 443 - SUPREME COURT], while examining the case of Assam General Sales tax Act, 1993 and the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, in the case of an assessee, who had agreed to provide different categories of motor vehicles, such as trucks, trailors, tankers, buses, scrapping winch chasis, and cranes, to the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited to deliver its petroleum products, also examined the question whether hiring these motor vehicles / cranes, there was transfer of the right to use any goods and if there was a transfer of the right to use the goods, will it amount to a sale in terms of Clause (29A) (d) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. After going through the salient features of the contract, the Supreme Court held that it was apparent that there was no intention to transfer the use of any particular tank truck in favour of ONGC. The contract was to provide tank trucks for the transportation of goods.
In the above case, the Supreme Court had also referred to the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER VERSUS RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD. [2002 (3) TMI 705 - SUPREME COURT]. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the assessees by holding that the contracts were not covered by the relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act and of the VAT Act, as the contracts did not provide for the transfer of the right to use the goods made available to the person, who was allowed to use the same. The assesse had only entered into a contract to transfer the goods and there was no transfer of the right to use the vehicle, tankers etc.
The Tribunal was not justified in treating the transactions in question as ‘deemed sale’ as transfer of right to use within the provisions of Section 2 (40) of the Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Since the above said transaction was not taxable, there was no question that the deduction on account of salary of driver, cleaner and cost of diesel and lubricants was not deductible from the gross turnover received from the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation.
Revision allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 955
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - use of false, forged, or fake documents and the offence of abetment - in its operations has the Petitioner been associated with irregularities or offences - HELD THAT:- In BHADRESH BIPINBHAI SHETH VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER [2016 (2) TMI 416 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down specific guidelines for applications for anticipatory bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held 'The prosecutrix has moved an application in these proceedings for perusing new evidence on the basis of which she claims that the appellant has committed breach of conditions of anticipatory bail and regular bail. It is not necessary for us to go into the allegations made in this application.'
In GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB [1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answers upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict”.
It is settled law that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the accusation's nature and gravity and the accused's exact role must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. In the event of some doubt as to the genuineness of the Prosecution, the normal course of events is that the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. The Court must adequately exercise its jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. It is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.
This Court views that even if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the Prosecution that they will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the Petitioners have a permanent abode. It is not the Prosecution's case that the Petitioners would flee away from the jurisdiction of the Court. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the Petitioners - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 954
Maintainability of petiton - alternative remedy u/s 30 of GST Act to file an application - Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex Court in WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VERSUS REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & ORS. [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT] held that in certain contingencies viz., when writ petition is filed for enforcement of fundamental rights, or where there has been a violation of principles of natural justice or when the proceedings impugned are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an act is challenged, the writ petition could be maintainable in spite of availability of alternative remedy.
In the instant case the petitioner banks upon the violation of principles of natural justice to maintain the writ petition. In this context, a perusal of the show cause notice dated 22.06.2023 shows that the 1st respondent has given required particulars of the non-existent tax payers from whom the petitioner allegedly obtained bogus tax invoices.
Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, no order deserved in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, it is deemed apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 953
Maintainability of petiton - alternative remedy u/s 30 of GST Act to file an application - Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex Court in WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VERSUS REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & ORS. [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT] held that in certain contingencies viz., when writ petition is filed for enforcement of fundamental rights, or where there has been a violation of principles of natural justice or when the proceedings impugned are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an act is challenged, the writ petition could be maintainable in spite of availability of alternative remedy.
In the instant case the petitioner banks upon the violation of principles of natural justice to maintain the writ petition. In this context, a perusal of the show cause notice dated 22.06.2023 shows that the 1st respondent has given required particulars of the non-existent tax payers from whom the petitioner allegedly obtained bogus tax invoices.
Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, no order deserved in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, it is deemed apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 952
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy U/s 30 of GST Act - Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India - pivotal argument of petitioner is that the petitioner never indulged in bogus purchases or supplies to accommodate his suppliers to claim ITC fraudulently.
HELD THAT:- Thus, Hon’ble Apex Court in WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VERSUS REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & ORS. [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT] held that in certain contingencies viz., when writ petition is filed for enforcement of fundamental rights, or where there has been a violation of principles of natural justice or when the proceedings impugned are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an act is challenged, the writ petition could be maintainable in spite of availability of alternative remedy.
In the instant case the petitioner banks upon the violation of principles of natural justice to maintain the writ petition. In this context, a perusal of the show cause notice dated 23.06.2023 shows that the 1st respondent has given required particulars of the non-existent tax payers from whom the petitioner allegedly obtained bogus tax invoices. Therefore, there are no venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated.
Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, no order is deserved in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, it is deemed apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.
The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 951
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned orders, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not file written objections or attend the personal hearing. By taking into account the assertion that the petitioner could not participate in proceedings on account of being unaware of the same, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits by putting the petitioner on terms.
Therefore, the impugned orders dated 10.07.2023 are set aside and the matters are remanded for reconsideration on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period as agreed to. Such remittance shall be made within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (6) TMI 950
Violation of principles of natural justice - no opportunity of personal hearing - petitioner was unaware of the aforesaid order or notices that preceded the impugned order as they were posted in the GST common portal and that the petitioner/Proprietor of the petitioner was hospitalised due to ill health - HELD THAT:- Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, considering the fact that the amount of tax involved is only Rs. 1,31,998/- (Rs. 65,992/- x 2) and considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 41,475/- has already been recovered form the petitioner towards arrears of due under the impugned order, the impugned order stands quashed by giving liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation before the respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (6) TMI 949
Seeking quashing of impugned order - petitioner is willing to deposit 10% of the disputed tax to the credit of the respondent - HELD THAT:- This Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner after recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to deposit 10% of the disputed tax to the credit of the respondent.
The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. The petitioner shall file a reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall pay the amount from its Electronic Cash Register within the aforesaid period. It is submitted that the respondent will pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 3 months thereafter.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (6) TMI 948
Rejection of appeal against cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration - HELD THAT:- The order issued in Suguna Cutpiece v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], was a conditional order and that the petitioner should be directed to comply with all conditions stipulated therein.
It is not necessary to adjudicate this matter on merits. Instead, by following the decision in Suguna Cutpiece, this writ petition is disposed of by holding that the petitioner is directed to file returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, together with tax dues along with interest thereon and the fee fixed for belated filing of returns within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (6) TMI 947
Levy of GST - seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in A. Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'It is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision.'
The petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
