Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2024 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 61 to 80 of 18386 Records

• 2024 (12) TMI 1514
  

  Cancellation of registration of the petitioner - non filing of the GST return for a continuous period of six months - petitioner contends that now the petitioner is ready to make the payment towards GST return for a period of six months as well as the penalty and interest, if any, im posed by the respondent-department - HELD THAT:- An identical controversy has been decided by this Court in SUNIL SAH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2024 (9) TMI 904 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'The petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application for revocation or cancellation of the order under Section 30 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017, within two weeks.'

  In view of the consensus between the parties, the matter is covered by the order in SUNIL SAH, the present writ petition is also decided in terms of the said order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application for revocation or cancellation of the order under Section 30(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, within two weeks.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1513
  

  Negative blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger - conditions and limitations under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- Reliance upon the judgment rendered in Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (9) TMI 1543 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Dealing with an identical question, the Court in Best Crop had held 'Rule 86A(1) of the Rules does not contemplate an order, the effect of which is to require a taxpayer to replenish his ECL with valid availment of ITC, to the extent of ITC used in the past, which the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him has reasons to believe, was fraudulently availed or was ineligible. Such an interpretation would in effect amount to construe an Order under Rule 86A(1) of the Rules as an order for recovery of tax. This is obvious because the taxpayer would now have to incur a larger cash outflow for payment of taxes as he would be denied utilization of validly availed ITC, which he would require to accumulate to compensate for the ITC availed and utilized which the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him, has reasons to believe was fraudulently availed or was ineligible.'

  The negative blocking cannot be sustained - petition allowed in part.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1512
  

  Validity of unsigned order u/s 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts - whether orders issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts must carry the digital or manual signature of the officer passing the order in order to treat the order to be a valid order for the purposes of the CGST/SGST Acts? - HELD THAT:- The issue appears to be covered in favour of the petitioners in these writ petitions by the recent Division Bench judgment of the Telangana High Court in Silver Oak Villas LLP V. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Begunpet Division Hyderabad [2024 (4) TMI 367 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], where the Court held that 'Since it is stated that the show cause notice dated 06.02.2021 should be confirmed to the discrepancies as pointed out in the notice dated 01.01.2021, this Court does not consider it apposite to set aside the said show cause notice but to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the notice dated 01.01.2021 and 06.02.2021.'

  Conclusion - An unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law.

  These writ petitions are allowed by quashing the impugned orders and making it clear that it will be open to the competent among the respondents in all these cases to upload fresh orders by affixing digital signatures or by serving a copy of the order after affixing manual signature.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1511
  

  Challenge to SCN issued by Proper Officer - When the investigation, inspection, search and seizure is substantially completed by an improper Officer, is the show cause notice issued by a proper Officer under Section 74 of the CGST Act and KGST Act liable to be set aside?

  HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 is the proper officer for inspection, search and seizure and also issuance of show cause notice and not respondent no. 2.

  Reading of Section 74 of the CGST Act shows that it is only a proper Officer who can investigate into evasion of GST and inspection, search and seizure and arrest can be done only by the proper Officer failing which the same will have to be held invalid and based upon the inspection, search and seizure if the proper Officer comes to the conclusion that there is mens rea involved as contemplated under Section 74 of the CGST Act, he can issue a notice under Section 74 and not otherwise - In the instant case, admittedly, substantial part of the investigation including search and seizure of the materials has been done by respondent no. 2 who is not the proper Officer and under the circumstances, the said investigation, inspection, search and seizure in respect of the petitioner herein has to be considered ab initio void.

  When the same is considered as ab initio void, notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act based upon search, seizure and the statements recorded from the petitioner which has been relied upon, has to be considered illegal and that there is no satisfaction on part of the proper Officer for issuance of the notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act. If respondent no. 2 after investigation has transferred the case to respondent no.3, for issuance of notice under Section 74, respondent no.3 was required to redo the investigation and come to an independent conclusion as contemplated under Section 74 of the CGST Act and only thereafter a fresh notice requires to be issued. Respondent no. 1 cannot issue a notice under Section 74 on the 'borrowed satisfaction'.

  Conclusion - It is only a proper Officer who can investigate into evasion of GST and inspection, search and seizure and arrest can be done only by the proper Officer failing which the same will have to be held invalid.

  The impugned show cause notice dated 11.04.2023 issued by respondent no. 1 (vide Annexure-G to the writ petition) is hereby set aside insofar as it relates to the petitioner - respondent no. 1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1510
  

  Refund of IGST - direction to process refund applications, which remained unaddressed despite multiple correspondences - HELD THAT:- The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to dispose of the petitioners’ applications in accordance with law and on their own merits within 4 weeks in terms of the statement made on their behalf. If respondents 2 and 3 are of the opinion that GST Authorities are the appropriate authorities after hearing the petitioners and considering the circular relied upon by the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 shall transfer such applications to the appropriate GST Authorities.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1509
  

  Validity of a Show Cause Notice - SCN relies on various material gathered in the course of a search including data alleged to have been extracted from electronic devices without complying with the procedure contemplated under Section 145 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Since it would be open for the writ petitioner to assert that the evidence which is relied upon is inadmissible, there exists no cause to entertain the challenge or interdict the SCN proceedings.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1508
  

  Cancellation of the Goods and Services Tax GST registration of the writ petitioner on the ground of violation of Rule 21(A) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The record reveals that prior to the issuance of that SCN, the writ petitioner had filed an application for appropriate amendments being made in its GST registration consequent to the principal place of business being changed. While considering the said application, the respondents had issued a notice dated 04 September 2024 requiring the writ petitioner to furnish additional documents. In terms of that notice, a reply was to be submitted by the writ petitioner by 13 September 2024.

  However, prior thereto and more particularly on 12 September 2024, the respondents proceeded to reject the application for amendment. The order cannot be sustained since the same admittedly came to be passed even before the petitioner could respond. This has clearly led to a violation of the principles of natural justice. This factor alone merits the order dated 12 September 2024 being quashed and set aside.

  The order dated 12 September 2024 quashed subject to the petitioner furnishing all documentation as required pursuant to the notice of 04 September 2024 - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1507
  

  Denial of benefit of input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Sub Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts - HELD THAT:- On account of notification of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, the petitioner will be entitled to input tax credit, which has been denied to the petitioner by Ext.P1 order, the writ petition will stand disposed of, setting aside Ext.P1 to the extent that it denied input tax credit to the petitioner on account of the provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing the competent authority to pass fresh orders, after taking note of the provisions contained in Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST Acts and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1506
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Seeking for restoration of registration under Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is true that petitioner availed statutory remedy against cancellation order dated 10th March, 2023, also mentioned in the prayer. As such it is a case of petitioner giving up its main prayer and asking for order on the supplementary, regarding the cancellation order.

  Petitioner will be entitled to revocation of cancellation order dated 10th march, 2023 on fulfilment of direction for payment of all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc.

  The writ petition is disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1505
  

  Cancellation of GST Registration held by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents cancelling the GST Registration held by the petitioner, it is stated to have moved an application for revocation of that order on 14 October 2014 - Since that application is presently pending consideration of the respondents, there are no ground to entertain the writ petition.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1504
  

  Challenge to adjudication order rejecting his client’s claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) as barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- In view of aforesaid impugned order dated 22nd April, 2024 is set aside and quashed. Petitioner has moved Court invoking writ jurisdiction on not having filed appeal. In the circumstances, circular dated 15th October, 2024 by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, requiring petitioner to apply for rectification is to be complied with.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1503
  

  Challenge to impugned order on the premise that the same is made in violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was unaware of the initiated proceedings - neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order of assessment has been served on the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, where in, the petitioner has already remitted more than 25% (almost 70%) of the disputed taxes, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be granted one final opportunity to put forth his objections, which was not objected to by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

  Since, the above order is made on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 35,95,104/- has been remitted already, the respondent may verify the same. If the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the payment of tax of more than 25% is incorrect, the respondent authority shall intimate the same to the petitioner who shall within 2 weeks from the date of such intimation deposit 25% of disputed taxes. Subject to verification of payment of 25% of disputed taxes or on payment of 25% of disputed taxes, attachments if any, would be lifted.

  Conclusion - The petitioner may be granted one final opportunity to put forth his objections, which was not objected to by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

  The impugned order, dated 26.04.2024 is set aside. The impugned order shall be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner shall file their objections within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1502
  

  Denial of benefit of input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the assertion of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on account of notification of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, the petitioner will be entitled to input tax credit, which has been denied to the petitioner by Ext. P1 order, the writ petition will stand disposed of, setting aside Ext. P1 to the extent that it denied input tax credit to the petitioner on account of the provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing the competent authority to pass fresh orders, after taking note of the provisions contained in Section 16 (5) of the CGST/SGST Acts and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1501
  

  Petitioner seeks further opportunity to upload Ext.P2 FORM and claim ITC in respect of the closing stock as on 09.04.2024 - switching over from the Composition Scheme under Section 10 of the CGST/SGST Acts to Regular Scheme of tax payment under Section 9 of the CGST/SGST Acts - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is to be given one more opportunity to upload Ext.P2 FORM and claim ITC in respect of the closing stock, as on 09.04.2024. It is clear from Ext.P3 that, after several attempts to upload Ext.P2 FORM, the petitioner raised a complaint with the GST Help Desk. It is also not disputed that, 08.05.2024 was the last day for the petitioner to upload Ext.P2 FORM and Ext.P3 shows that a complaint had been raised by the petitioner on 08.05.2024. That complaint of the petitioner has now been closed by Ext.P6 communication. Though it is the case of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GST Network that the complaint raised was closed because the petitioner did not respond, the fact remains that even on the last day for uploading Ext.P2 FORM, the petitioner did not get a response regarding the technical glitches that he faced in uploading Ext.P2 FORM.

  Conclusion - The petitioner should be given another opportunity to upload the form, keeping in view the petitioner's efforts and the unresolved technical issues.

  The writ petition will stand disposed of, directing that the petitioner shall be given one more opportunity to upload Ext.P2 FORM, if necessary, by enabling the Portal.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1500
  

  Challenge to provisional attachment order - Revenue submitted that the provisional attachment order has not been continued after 17.10.2024 - HELD THAT:- In view of such statement made at bar by Revenue, the petition has become infructuous and the consequences would follow.

  The petition is accordingly disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1499
  

  Amendment made to Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 substituting “twenty per cent” pre deposit to “ten per cent” for maintaining an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Tribunal - non-constitution of Tribunal - HELD THAT:- As of now pre-deposit has been reduced to “ten per cent” but however, the same is made effective only from 01.11.2024. It is an admitted position that the GST Tribunals have not been constituted as yet and there is no possibility of an appeal being filed prior to 01.11.2024. In such circumstance, we direct that the assessee on payment of “ten per cent” of the tax amounts in dispute shall be entitled to stay of recovery till the Tribunal is constituted and an appeal is filed within such term as provided therein.

  Subject to deposit of a sum equal to 10 percent of the 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. The recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1498
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Cancellation of registration of petitioner - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. An appeal was to be filed on or before 30.03.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 29.04.2023. Hence, an appeal could have been filed on or before 29.04.2023, which provision was not availed by the petitioner herein - The petitioner has not availed such remedy and at this point of time, cannot seek to avail the appellate remedy for reason of the limitation period having expired long prior.

  The petitioner was not a registered dealer after cancellation and there was no monitoring of his activities by the Department in the intervening period. There is no way to ascertain as to whether there was any transaction carried out during the said period. There is also the fact that the petitioner has not availed of the appellate remedy nor the Amnesty Scheme which was made applicable.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1497
  

  Challnege to SCN - petitioners submitted that the impugned show cause notice is issued without following the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 74 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice, returnable on 20th November, 2024.

  By way of ad-interim relief, the proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 10th July, 2024 may continue, however, no final order shall be passed without permission of this Court during the pendency of this petition.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1496
  

  Blocking of ITC without giving any opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration that though the petitioner had responded to notice dated 18.07.2024 proposing to block his input tax credit and also submitted his reply on 24.07.2024 followed by additional submissions but without passing any order on the same, another authority has blocked ITC without giving any opportunity of hearing, the effect and operation of Annexure-P/8 where by the respondents have blocked the ITC of Rs. 6,62,776/- as uploaded in GSTIN:08AAFCL1811Q1Z8 in the name of M/s Lipika Tech Private Limited for the period 01.08.2024 to 31.08.2024, shall remain stayed.

  List after four weeks.

  ---

• 2024 (12) TMI 1495
  

  Re-opening of the case - It is the contention of the petitioner that the subject matter of the impugned SCN had previously been adjudicated by an appellate authority under the JGST Act, 2017 and that it was, therefore, not open to the respondent no.3 to re-open the said issue without any valid ground - HELD THAT:- The notice in this writ petition had been received by the respondents on 18.09.2024. Till date, it appears that no instructions have been issued by the respondents to the counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

  There are force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-4 dated 29.07.2024.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

12345678........ 920