|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 18006 Records
-
2023 (12) TMI 1417
Grant of anticipatory bail - corruption and bribery - prosecution’s case is that proposal for enhancement of the tender amount was not made according to the guidelines by the Competent Authority in such type of matters - relevance and admissibility of evidence - HELD THAT:- Although the petitioner was not named in the FIR but the investigation revealed that he had also put his signatures on the proposal to enhance the building to green and in-turn he had received bribe of Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant through co-accused Rambir. By such enhancement, petitioner in connivance with other officials of Municipal Corporation, Sonipat, wanted to give undue benefit to Lalit Mittal in violation of guidelines/norms/policies dated 12.12.2018. In addition to that there were irregularities in the technicalities and proposal which was pointed out in technical report dated 13.02.2023. Because of the unethical conduct of the complainant, the petitioner, who was discharging official functions and holding the post of Electrical Engineer, indulged in corrupt criminal practices and enriched himself knowingly that even if the money was not paid to the contractor, he had nothing to lose. In this manner, he acted as a cheat, which is also why an offence under Section 420 IPC read with 120 B IPC had already been incorporated in the FIR.
Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner.
In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [1987 (3) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT], Supreme Court holds 'A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.'
Conclusion - The petitioner failed to establish a case for anticipatory bail, given the allegations and the necessity for custodial interrogation.
The petitioner fails to make a case for anticipatory bail - petition dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1416
Release of amount of Rs. 156 lakhs seized from the petitioners after furnishing bank guarantee - accounted money or not - HELD THAT:- Counsel for the petitioners relied on the order R. RAVIRAJAN; BALAGANESH; VIJAYA BHARATI VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA & UNION OF INDIA [2023 (9) TMI 1557 - KERALA HIGH COURT], in which this Court considered a similar matter in detail and found that the Income Tax department is not entitled for the amount. In the above order, this Court specifically observed that the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering the handing over of the amount to the revenue in such situation can not be sustained.
Conclusion - The orders by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, directing the release of the seized amount to the Income Tax Department were set aside. The petitioners were granted the release of the seized amount upon furnishing a bond and sureties, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.
In the light of the above order, these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are to be allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1415
Addition u/s 69 - Treating cash balance shown in the books of account as cash introduced from alleged undisclosed income - HELD THAT:- It incomprehensible that in case the cash-in-hand as claimed by the assessee firm was sourced from its books of account, then why such books of accounts were held back and not produced before the A.O.
Rather, the production of only the extract of the cash book as of 31.03.2016 wherein the cash-in-hand was disclosed at Rs.29.64 lacs (supra) in view would be nothing better than a mere eye wash which could not have been acted upon by the A.O. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly approved the addition made by the A.O, thus, uphold the same.
Scope of limited scrutiny - Addition made with respect to the difference in the interest income disclosed by the assessee firm in its return of income as against that shown in its Form 26AS - HELD THAT:- Case of the assessee firm was selected for limited scrutiny, the A.O. could not have ventured to an issue that did not form the basis for taking up the case for scrutiny assessment - ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Su-Raj Diamond Dealers (P) Ltd. [2019 (12) TMI 26 - ITAT MUMBAI] had observed that since the assessee’s case was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS with respect to certain specific issues, the jurisdiction of the A.O in the absence of getting the said case converted into complete scrutiny as per the CBDT Instruction No.20 of 2015 dated 29.12.2015, was confined only to the specific reason/issue based on which the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny. Accordingly, addition made by the A.O is liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O while framing the “limited scrutiny” assessment vide his order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 13.12.2018.
Assessee appeal partly allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1414
Issuance of notice u/s 143(2) by non jurisdictional officer - Notice issued by ACIT/ DCIT v/s ITO - HELD THAT:- As per the CBDT Instruction 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011, the moment the return of income has been filed by the assessee disclosing taxable income more than 15 lakhs or 20 lakhs for Mofussil and metro areas respectively, as the case may be, the scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could be issued only by the authority in the rank of ACIT/ DCIT and not by ITO.
It is bounden duty on the part of the ld. DCIT to have issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed time provided in the statute after having assumed jurisdiction over the assessee, which is admittedly not done in the instant case by the ld. DCIT. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the entire scrutiny assessment framed u/s 143(3)144 by DCIT, Circle Haridwar without issuing a valid and legal notice u/s 143(2) of the Act become void abinitio and deserves to be quashed.
Whether department would be rescued by the provisions of section 292BB? - We are unable to comprehend ourselves to agree to this argument of the revenue in as much as in our considered understanding, the provisions of section 292BB applies only in case of improper service/ wrong service of notice and not to objection not taken by the assessee during assessment proceedings.
Section 292BB of the Act does not save the defect of non-issue of valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act by the jurisdictional officer. Hence, in the absence of valid and legal notice issued by the jurisdictional officer, the assessment framed on the assessee requires to be quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1413
Execution of will in accordance with the legal requirements under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - prominent participation in its execution - HELD THAT:- It is well-nigh settled position that the burden to prove the execution of the Will is on the propounder(s) and on its discharge the onus would be on the opposing contestant to establish that it is not valid. Certainly, if suspicious circumstances have been pleaded by the contestant opposing Will and prima facie shown them to be true, then the onus would be shifted to the propounder(s) to dispel the suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the court so as to accept it as genuine. In the light of the position so settled and in view of the fact that the trial Court and the High Court are at issue on the question whether the Will in question was proved as valid, in accordance with law, we will have to proceed to consider the said question. In that regard, in view of the undisputed position that the Will was executed by Cecelia Gertrude Lobo, the question to be considered is whether the circumstances taken as suspicious circumstances by the High Court are in troth, suspicious circumstances, capable of calling the propounder to dispel them.
Section 63 of the Succession Act prescribes the mode and method of proving a Will and going by the provisions Under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, though a Will shall not be used as evidence until one of the attesting witnesses has been examined. It will suffice to examine one of the attesting witnesses to prove the same - the trial Court had taken into account the entire evidence on record to conclude that legal requirements in terms of the provisions Under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Under Section 68 of the Evidence Act have been complied with by the Plaintiffs and ultimately to hold that the Plaintiffs have succeeded in proving the execution of the Will.
Once the burden to prove is discharged by the propounder in terms of Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and by adducing prima facie evidence proving the competence of the testator, the onus is on the contestant opposing to show prima facie the existence of suspicious circumstances so as to shift the onus on the propounder to dispel them. Without knowing the circumstances, which according to the contestant opposing are suspicious, how will the propounder be able to dispel them and to convince the court about its genuineness and validity - A case of well-founded suspicion has to exist to cause shifting of onus back to the propounder once he discharged his burden to prove the execution of the Will.
The allegation of prominent participation as relates execution of a Will suggests some kind of influential interference on the testator/testatrix. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the mere presence of executor or any beneficiary under a Will at the time of the execution of the Will ipso facto will not invalidate it or is sufficient to cast suspicion on the execution of the Will. At any rate, it is for the person raising the same to prove that it was not a mere presence in the vicinity and it was capable of influencing the testator/testatrix.
Conclusion - There are no hesitation to hold that the trial Court had rightly considered all the circumstances to come to the conclusion that Ext.P2 Will was validly executed and it was proved by the Appellants. The circumstances were taken as suspicious by the High Court sans foundation and the High Court erred in holding the subject Will dated 10.11.1992 as not proved.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1412
Approval of the Resolution Plan challenged - challenged on the ground that as per the Resolution Plan, only 0.13% has been earmarked towards Government dues, and the Financial Creditor is getting 44.5% of the Claim amounts and the other Operational Creditors are getting 0.51% of their Claim amounts, which is stated to be unfair - it was held by NCLAT that 'In the instant case, this Tribunal do not find any such irregularity in the Provisions of the Resolution Plan, as specified under Section 30 (2) of the Code.'
HELD THAT:- Issue notice returnable in March 2024.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1411
Profiteering - purchase of flat - benefit of input tax credit (ITC) had not been passed on to his customers by way of commensurate reduction in prices - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The Commission is of the view that the claim of the Respondent regarding passing on the benefit of additional ITC to his customers/home- buyers needs to be verified. The Respondent is directed to provide all the documentary evidence i.e. "Names of the home-buyers, their E- mail ids/Mobile Nos./Addresses, Amount of ITC benefit passed on to each home-buyer, Copies of Tax invoice, Credit Notes and Cheques issued to each home-buyer, Copies of Bank Statements indicating the amount of ITC benefit passed on to the home-buyers and Acknowledgement Receipts from all the home-buyers stating that they have received the additional benefit of ITC" duly certified by the Authorized person of the Respondent to the DGAP to prove his above claim. The claim of the Respondent regarding passing on the benefit of ITC to the customers/home-buyers shall be verified by the DGAP by contacting the customers/home buyers and seeking their replies regarding receipt of benefit of ITC.
The Commission is of the view that on the basis of the documents submitted by the Respondent, the DGAP has not tried to investigate whether the Respondent had sold the flats to the post-GST home- buyers at the rates lower than the rates charged from the pre-GST home-buyers. Further, during the course of investigation, the Respondent has not provided the details to the DGAP. The DGAP has already submitted his investigation report to the Commission.
The Commission under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 directs the DGAP to further investigate the claim of the Respondent regarding passing on the benefit of ITC and charging lower rates from the post-GST buyers than the pre-GST buyers and recalculate the profiteered amount, if required. The Respondent is also directed to extend all necessary assistance to the DGAP and furnish him with necessary documents or information as required during the course of the investigation.
Conclusion - The benefits of ITC must be passed on to consumers, and the burden of proof lies with the seller to demonstrate compliance.
Application disposed off
-
2023 (12) TMI 1410
Cancellation of the Registration of GST of the petitioner - it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent-authority to reconsider the cancellation of the Registration of GST of the petitioner, after rehearing him, in view of the absence of Appellate Tribunal.
HELD THAT:- In the absence of Appellate Tribunal, to challenge any order passed by the Appellate Authority, it would be more appropriate that the Appellate Authority rehears the petitioner regarding the cancellation of Registration, as it involves certain ascertainment of facts. This Court, in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India rather than examining this issue deems it proper to close this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for reconsideration of the cancellation of Registration of GST of the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, was cancelled without assigning any reason.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1409
Penalty u/s 271D - Accepted the sale consideration in cash in contravention to the provision of section 269SS - Mandation to record satisfaction - whether without satisfaction being recorded in the assessment order, penalty can be levied u/s 271D of the Act? - HELD THAT:- In the case of Umakant Sharma [2023 (8) TMI 1094 - ITAT INDORE] observed that, it is pre-requisite condition that the initiation of penalty under section 271D/271E of the Act, there must be assessment proceedings or proceeding arising from assessment order are pending in the case of the assessee, and, therefore, following the case of Vijayaben G. Zalavadia [2022 (5) TMI 1572 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] deleted the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act by holding that without any assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee such penalty is not valid and liable to be quashed.
Provisions u/s 271E and 271D of the Act are in pari materia and since in terms of the decision in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT] satisfaction must be recorded in the original assessment order for the purpose of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271E of the Act, the same is equally applicable for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1408
Revision u/s 263 - assessee has surrendered income on discrepancies found during the course of survey action - AO treated the surrender amount as the business income of the assessee - AR submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny only on the issue of the amount surrendered during the course of survey action - HELD THAT:- During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO in the notice issued u/s 142(1) has asked the assessee to show-cause why the surrendered income in terms of excess stock of Rs 40 lacs and excess cash of Rs 10 lacs found during the course of survey may not be brought to tax under the deeming provisions r.w.s. 115BBE. In response to the notice so issued, the assessee has filed his submission stating that he has surrendered the excess stock and cash which is related to his business and offer of surrender was accepted by the department team at the time of survey and pursuant thereto, the assessee has not back tracked from his offer and has paid taxes as per law prevailing on the date of survey and this income was duly shown in income tax return and duly reported for tax purposes.
AO taking cognizance of the findings of the survey team, the documents found during the course of survey, the statement of the assessee, and the return of income and after examination thereof and due application of mind, has accepted the explanation so offered by the assessee and the returned income was accepted wherein the surrendered income has been offered under the head business income. We therefore find that the assessee has been asked specific questions during the course of assessment proceedngs, after due examination and being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the same has been accepted and thus, it is not a case of lack of enquiry on part of the AO or for that matter, accepting the explanation of the assessee on face value. The AO has duly enquired in the matter and thereafter, has taken a view in the matter.
No doubt, these transactions were not recorded at the time of survey thus qualify as unrecorded transactions satisfying one of the essential conditions, at the same time, the assessee has provided the necessary explanation about the nature and source of such unrecorded transactions and the necessary nexus with assessee’s business has been established, thus, it cannot be said that these are unexplained transactions thus, doesn’t satisfy the second condition for invoking the deeming provisions of the Act. Thus, the view taken by the AO is clearly a plausible view considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and nothing has been pointed out as to how the view so taken is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
The order so passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous due to lack of inquiry or for that matter requisite inquiry on the part of the AO.
As we have held above, there is no findings recorded by the Ld. Pr. CIT as to how the deeming provisions are applicable in the instant case and the order so passed by the AO is erroneous. We therefore find that merely stating that there was survey operation at the business premises of the assessee and provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act are attracted, the same can be a basis for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In view of the same, order so passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 is set aside and that of the AO is restored. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1407
Calculation of duty demand for the period from 2002-03 till 8-9-05 - Eligibility for CENVAT Credit and Input Duty Credit - HELD THAT:- It was held by CESTAT that 'While the Appellants are certainly liable to penal action for not taking Excise Registration and not submitting the periodical returns from time to time and for not maintaining the prescribed registers, it would be necessary to take a liberal view in their case and allow them the small-scale exemption, computation on the basis of cum-duty price and set-off against the CENVAT Credit on the invoices issued by public sector suppliers subject to being available for verification.'
There are no manifest error of law in the impugned order of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law is involved. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1406
Levy of tax and Penalty - whether mere expiration of e-Way Bill during the course of transportation could attract the wrath of Section 129, read with Rule 138 of the Act and Rules of 2017, and if at all, the same could attract penalty in terms thereof? - HELD THAT:- Recently the issue at hand was decided by the Allahabad High Court in Sleevco Traders through Its Proprietor Shri Alok Gupta [2022 (5) TMI 845 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. The High Court after taking into consideration the fact and the circumstances in which the e-Way bill expired, held that “there is neither any intention to evade payment of tax nor any fraud nor any contravention of the Act, as valid documents were accompanying with the goods as required under the Act”.
The aforesaid order was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Apex Court in ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER GRADE-2 (APPEAL) FIFTH COMMERCIAL TAX & ANR. VERSUS M/S SLEEVCO TRADERS [2023 (7) TMI 418 - SC ORDER] and the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the State inter alia holding as “This Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court, which is correctly appreciated”.
Admittedly; in the instant case, the revenue has not taken into consideration the fact that because of denial of permission to enter into Adityapur Industrial Area due to the festive season (Deepawali), the vehicle (Truck) was bound to stop for some time, as a result of which the validity of the e-Way Bill expired. It is also admitted fact that the truck was within 1 KM of the Industrial Area and not far, thus it is evident that the expiry of e-Way Bill due to aforesaid reason should not and cannot amount to intention of evasion of tax and therefore, no extent of penalty would arise.
This Court in similar facts and circumstance in the case of Rivigo Services Private Limited Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2022 (11) TMI 391 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] had quashed and set aside the order passed by the revenue and remanded the matter back to the authorities for fresh consideration.
Inasmuch as, there is neither any intention to evade payment of tax nor any fraud has been committed and valid documents were accompanying with the goods as required under the Act; save and except, the E-Way Bill which had expired by few hours and this Court cannot ignore the fact that the vehicle was intercepted very near to the Check-Post and as stated by the petitioner and not controverted by the Revenue that it was the festive season of Diwali.
Conclusion - The mere expiration of an e-Way Bill, without intent to evade tax, does not justify the imposition of penalties under Section 129.
The petitioner had already paid the penalty; interest of justice would be sufficed by allowing the petitioner to claim for refund and if any such application for refund is preferred; the competent authority shall consider the same within a period of 8 weeks from the date on which such application is made and refund be effected, if there are no other legal impediment - Application allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1405
Profiteering - construction projects - benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) not passed on to the buyers - contravention of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the DGAP report dated 15.02.2023 in respect of both the projects is incomplete. Accordingly, the DGAP is directed to re investigate both the above projects viz 'Omkar 1973 Worli' and 'The Summit Business Bay' under Rule 133(4) of the above Rules and submit complete report accordingly. The Respondent No. 1 is also directed to supply the required information to the DGAP promptly.
Conclusion - i) The additional benefit of ITC in the GST regime is required to be passed on by the suppliers to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in price, in terms of Section 171 of GST Act, 2017. ii) Reinvestigation directed by the DGAP to address identified discrepancies and ordered the Respondent No. 1 to provide complete documentation.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1404
Profiteering - Construction Service supplied by the Respondent - it is alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC to her by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat purchased from the Respondent - contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Commission finds that the matter needs to be sent back to DGAP under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for re-investigation on the following issues:
i. Whether Smt. Sudha has received the benefit of ITC due to the settlement made by her with the Respondent as a consequence of which she has withdrawn her complaint?
ii. Whether some of the flats constructed by the Respondent fell under the 'Affordable Housing Scheme' and whether GST was to be charged on those flats @ 8%?
iii. To consider the claim of the Respondent regarding cancellation of flats/units in the project and calculate the profiteering accordingly.
iv. Verification of the 'passing on of ITC benefit' to homebuyers/customers be carried out afresh.
Conclusion - The DGAP is directed to submit a fresh investigation report under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on all the issues mentioned.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1403
Condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent/Appellate Authority - time limit for filing an appeal - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that since the order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the second respondent has provides 3 months time for preferring appeal, the petitioner was under the wrong impression that they can file the appeal within 3 months plus 30 days in addition, (in the event of any delay) from the date of receipt of the order 30.03.2023. But, however, the Act only provides for 2 months, which is exclusive of one month grace time for the delay, if any. Therefore, reasons assigned by the petitioner for preferring the Appeal with delay is appears to be genuine and reasonable, inasmuch as, the petitioner got confused over the time limit prescribed under the Statute, (which is only two months) and the time limit prescribed by the second respondent/Authority which is three month's, inclusive of one month delay period. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2023.
Conclusion - This Court finds that since the order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the second respondent has provides 3 months time for preferring appeal, the petitioner was under the wrong impression that they can file the appeal within 3 months plus 30 days in addition.
The impugned order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to take the Appeal on record and dispose of the Appeal on merits.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1402
Challenge to assessment orders for the financial years 2013-14 to 2017-18 under the CGST and SGST Acts - assessment orders were passed without granting sufficient time to him to furnish the balance 'C' Form and denying the concessional rate of tax - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The 2nd respondent, at the time of consideration of the stay application, prima facie found that the appellant could not produce any documents to substantiate his contention that he is entitled to concessional rate of tax. In the said circumstances, the 2nd respondent chose to impose the condition while granting stay. The tax liability comes to more than ₹ 45,00,000/-. There are no illegality in the order of the 2nd respondent imposing a condition to grant stay.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1401
Challenge to action of the respondents in realising the service tax arrears under the Finance Act, 1994 in terms of Section 87(b) by issuing a garnishee order - HELD THAT:- The 5th respondent had already withdrawn an amount of ₹ 1,30,64,178/- from the bank account of the appellant held with the said bank and paid to the 2nd respondent. The balance outstanding under the garnshiee order is ₹ 68,01,439/-. The learned standing counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant does not have enough funds with them and they cannot mobilise the balance amount in five instalments as directed. The learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 formally objected to the grant of more instalments albeit conceding that Ext.P4 circular allowed for the grant of more instalments. Considering the rival submissions, the appellant can be granted twelve instalments as against five instalments granted by the learned Single Judge to discharge the outstanding service tax and interest. The first instalment of ₹ 15,00,000/- can be deducted by the 4th respondent from the amount lying in the appellant's bank account as directed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant shall pay the balance amount in twelve equal instalments starting from 1st February, 2024.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1400
Maintainability of petition - availing statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order - non-constitution of the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification bearing Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S. O. 399, dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T Act, which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act, enters office.
Subject to deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1399
Levy of GST on various fees collected by Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, a Government Authority - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The rejection of application for advance ruling in the instant case stems from the fact that an investigation initiated by DGGI against the appellant is pending on the same issue. This being the case, the advance ruling authority ought to have shared the new findings of DGGI that was lying before them, and discussed the same in detail, either during the personal hearing, or thereafter, before proceeding to finalise the case.
The principles of natural justice have not been followed in the instant case, since the advance ruling authority had erred in not sharing the documents and comments forwarded by DGGI, with the appellants. Accordingly, justice will be met by restoring the application for advance ruling to its original position, by way of remanding the case to the lower authority, with a direction to forward the letter dated 28.07.2022 of DGGI along with its enclosures to the appellant enabling them to comment on the same, and to offer them another opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the case as per the provisions of law.
Conclusion - The principles of natural justice have not been followed in the instant case, since the advance ruling authority had erred in not sharing the documents and comments forwarded by DGGI, with the appellants.
The matter is remanded to the Lower Authority for consideration and passing of appropriate orders, after following the principles of natural justice.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1398
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to penalty orders under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner has the remedy of filing an appeal against the said order. Instead of filing the statutory appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition. As the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy to file a statutory appeal, this Court does not entertain the present writ petition.
Petition disposed off.
........
|
9911796707
