|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1441 Records
-
2025 (5) TMI 1441
Miscellaneous application seeking Direction to release/ provide the original copy of documents seized by the Respondent from the premises of the Petitioner during various searches conducted -department has lost the original document - HELD THAT:- We dispose of these miscellaneous application(s) with a direction that so far as File nos. 11, 12 and 13 respectively are concerned since the original have been lost, the department shall furnish certified copies of those three files keeping all other contentions available to both the sides open in that regard.
So far as original file Nos. 1-10 respectively are concerned the learned ASG very fairly submitted that the department is willing to hand over the same.
The assessee has to collect the same from the concerned department.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1440
Condonation of delay - Classification of service - execution of various turnkey contracts - Consulting Engineering Services or Works Contract Services - whether the appellant has transferred any property in the project to the project authority? - HELD THAT:- After condoning delay and hearing the learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant, upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Court found "no merit in the Appeal" and accordingly dismissed it.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1439
Cancellation of GST registration - No physical or offline notice served prior to the adjudication order - obligation to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued electronically - essential requirement of rules of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Since essential requirement of rules of natural justice has remained to be fulfilled, we set aside the order dated 13.06.2024 passed under Section 122 of the Act. The petitioner may treat the said order itself to be the notice and submit its final reply thereto within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to such compliance by the petitioner, fresh order may be passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months therefrom.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1438
Seeks to filing an appeal for availing the remedy under Section 107 - Validity of consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) u/s 74 or Consolidated Adjudicating Order for different financial year - Fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) - issuance of goods-less invoices - Compliance with procedural requirements for issuance of the SCN under the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- At this stage, liberty is sought by the Petitioner for filing an appeal as the limitation period for availing of the remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is also coming to an end.
Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to avail of the appellate remedy by 15th July, 2025, along with the necessary pre-deposit mandated under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, in which case the appeal shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
In so far as the issue pertaining to the issuance of consolidated show cause notice and orders-in-original for multiple financial years is concerned, the decision in Quest Infotech [2025 (5) TMI 1357 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which may be passed by this Court shall bind the Appellate proceedings as well if the Petitioner chooses to go in appeal.
The petition is disposed of in said terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1437
Validity of issuance of FORM GST DRC-01 and FORM GST DRC-02 - Non compliance of the statutory requirements and legal provisions for issuance of SCN - No computation of tax, interest, and penalty in the said SCN - fake firms floated by two persons - several persons involved in a maze of transactions - disciplinary proceedings against, the Chartered Accountant - seeking stay of the adjudication proceedings - HELD THAT:- The DRC-02 refers to the Show Cause notice for the purposes of computation. When there are a several persons involved in a maze of transactions, the fact that qua each of the noticees the exact amount is mentioned in the SCN is sufficient to inform the notice of the amount involved at the SCN stage. The adjudication being currently underway, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same especially considering the nature of the allegations against the Petitioners.
In writ jurisdiction, the Court cannot go into the veracity of the statements of the Petitioners which have been recorded by the Department and examine as to whether the same are true or false as the same would be a matter of adjudication. The scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited which this Court is not inclined to exercise in this matter.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
The proceedings in respect of the Show Cause notice shall proceed in accordance with law.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1436
Seeking release of refund claim along with applicable interest - Unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) - freight forwarding services to various clients in India and abroad - Procedural requirement for Withholding of Refund under Section 54(11) by the Commissioner - HELD THAT:- The position under Section 54 (11) of the CGST Act, 2017 has been recently considered by this Court in Shalender Kumar v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Ors. [2025 (4) TMI 555 - DELHI HIGH COURT], held that In the absence of an appeal or any other proceeding pending, challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the opinion under Section 54 (11) cannot result in holding back the refund.
Following the above settled legal position, under Section 54 (11) that the opinion of the Department cannot be relied upon on a stand-alone basis, without any challenge to the order by the Appellate Authority, it is directed that the refund amount be released in favour of the Petitioner along with statutory interest.
If, however, any appeal is filed challenging the Appellate authority's order by the department, then the processing of refund in terms of this order, shall be subject to the decision in the appeal.
The petition is disposed of in these terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1435
Demand of tax along with penalty and interest - petitioner unaware of issuance of notice u/s 74 -determination of tax - violation of statutory mandate under Section 75(7) - Challenged the impugned order - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the present case, the show-cause notice merely indicates the amount of Rs. 66,13,874.78 as representing the tax and penalty along with interest @ 18% p.a. and the demand qua the three components has been raised at Rs. 1,34,94,294/-, even if the notice qua interest amount is taken in compliance of the provisions, the amount of penalty and interest thereon is beyond the show cause notice, which is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act.
Thus, on account of violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, the order impugned cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure-4) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1434
Requirement for Payment of pre-deposit as per Section 112 (8) of the CGST Act - Obligation to file undertaking/declaration with the proper jurisdictional officer as per Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST - Validity of the impugned orders dated 29.04.2023 and 31.07.2024 - HELD THAT:- Upon advance notice, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, New Delhi, has issued Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST dated 11.07.2024, as per which, the petitioner is required to make the payment of the amount of pre-deposit as per Section 112 (8) of the CGST Act and file an undertaking/declaration with the proper jurisdictional officer that he will file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, as and when it is constituted for challenging the impugned order dated 31.07.2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to file an undertaking/declaration with the proper jurisdictional officer, in terms of the above referred to circular dated 11.07.2024.
Thus, present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file to file an undertaking/declaration with the proper jurisdictional officer, as per requirement of above referred to circular dated 11.07.2024.
Disposed of accordingly.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1433
Demand for tax under the heading of SGST and CGST - Application to rectify GSTR 3B on par with the figure mentioned in GSTR-1 - error in filling up of total taxable value while submitting GSTR 3B -claim refund - HELD THAT:- The same was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineers (I) Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors [2023 (12) TMI 729 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
In the present case also it is error committed by the petitioner insofar as filling up of certain figures in the GSTR 3B return and it is not tallying with the GSTR-1 to that extent petitioner’s request is for rectification of the same. Thus, petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.05.2020 and it is set aside. The concerned authorities are hereby directed to rectify form GSTR 3B on par with contents of GSTR-1 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. In this regard, petitioner is hereby directed to submit a manual application. The concerned authority is hereby directed to redress the consequent grievance if any, of the petitioner within a period of two months from today.
With the above observation the present writ petition stands allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1432
Seeking to restore the cancellation of GST registration - No business conducted at the declared place of business - petitioner produced an additional affidavit with invoices and photographs evidencing ongoing business operations at the declared location - HELD THAT:- The documents so furnished demonstrate that the business of the petitioner has been conducted till date. No serious objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel. However, to appreciate the factual aspects, the matter needs to be remitted to the authority concerned for consideration of evidence and if required, inspection be done with regard to existence of business at the declared place.
Accordingly, the order dated 12.08.2024 is set aside and the opposite party No.2-State Tax Officer, Jajpur Circle, Jajpur is directed to reconsider the matter taking into account the documents furnished before this Court by way of additional affidavit.
Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1431
Seeking adequate remedy by way of appeal before the appellate authority - Validity and legality of the impugned notice in Form GST DRC-13 - HELD THAT:- Accordingly, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the appellate authority within a period of six weeks from today. It is further directed that the interim orders passed by this Court in the present petition shall continue for a period of six weeks from today. The amounts already recovered by the respondents shall be subject to the final outcome of the appeals to be filed by the petitioner.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1430
Electronic credit ledger blocked by invoking Rule 86A of the 'the CGST Rules' - No pre-decisional hearing provided/granted and No valid "reasons to believe" contain in passing the impugned order - Rule of "Audi alteram partem" - Challenged the validity of the impugned orders - HELD THAT:- In view of the dictum of the Division Bench in the case of K-9-Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka [2024 (10) TMI 491 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], I am of the considered opinion that in the instant case since no pre-decisional hearing are provided/granted by the respondents before passing the impugned order, coupled with the fact that the impugned order invoking Section 86A blocking of the Electronic credit ledger of the petition does not contain independent or cogent reasons to believe/accept by placing reliance upon reports of enforcement authority which is impermissible in law, since the same is on borrowed satisfaction as held by Division Bench, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order except stating that the registered person/ supplier "found to be a bill trader and involved in issuance/availment in fake invoices and the business premises is not existing", no other reasons are forthcoming in the impugned order. On this ground also, the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 deserves to the quashed.
In the result, pass the following:
The petition is hereby allowed and Impugned order dated 13.01.2025 at Annexure - A is hereby quashed.
The concerned respondents are directed to unblock the Electronic credit ledger of the petitioner immediately upon the receipt of copy of this order, so as to enable the petitioner to file returns forthwith.
Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment of Division Bench in K-9-Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka reported in W.A.No.100425/2023 and connected matters.
The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 21.04.2025 without awaiting further notice from respondent No.2.
It is further made clear that in the event petitioner does not appear before respondent No.2 on 01.04.2025, the present order shall stand automatically recalled/cancelled and the present petition shall stand revived/ restored without further orders and without reference to the Bench.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1429
Simultaneous Proceedings by Central GST Authority u/s 70 and State GST authorities u/s 74 - Same subject matter - Entitlement to avail Input Tax Credit in the light of the Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST - valuation for the purpose of payment of taxes plus interest is covered by Circular No.210/4/2024-GST - availement of the benefit of Amnesty scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act - Challenged the impugned SCN - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that in November 2022, respondent No. 3 had initiated proceedings / intimation under Section 70 of the CGST Act by issuing letter on 28.11.2022, which is followed by the Show Cause Notices dated 27.09.2023. Meanwhile, despite having initiated proceedings on 28.11.2022, respondent No. 4 – State authorities who has issued the impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexures – A. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the said issue is answered by this Court in M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others [2024 (10) TMI 1240 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
As held in the aforesaid judgment, in view of Section 6 (2) (b) of the CGST Act, Annexure A deserve to be quashed.
Insofar as challenge to the impugned Notice at Annexure – A1 coupled with the contention that the petitioner would be entitled to avail Input Tax Credit under Section 16 (4) of the CGST / KGST Act is concerned, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, petitioner is to be relegated back to respondent No. 3 for consideration of its claim in accordance with law in the light of the said decisions and the Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024.
Insofar as the valuation regarding payment of tax and interests are concerned, in view of Circular No.210/4/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 even this issue would necessarily have to be decided by respondent No. 3 in accordance with law and the decision of Delhi High Court in Thales India Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of CGST, Audit – II, Delhi & Another [2025 (2) TMI 245 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
In the result, I pass the following:
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure – A dated 26.09.2023 issued by respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed.
(iii) Petitioner is relegated to the stage of filing reply to the Show Cause Notice at Annexure – A1 dated 27.09.2023 before respondent No. 3.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file its reply, pleadings, documents, etc., before respondent No. 3, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the judgment of above Courts; Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 and Circular No. 210/4/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1428
Non bailable warrant issued by the trial court against the petitioner for offence punishable u/s 276C (2) - HELD THA:- Having perused the provisions of Section 276C (2) of the IT Act under which the maximum sentence is only three years and the offence is bailable in nature, which the parties would not dispute.
Magistrate however not taking into consideration such position, has mechanically passed the order issuing the non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in a bailable offence. On a perusal of the said order, it is clear that no reasons are recorded.
It is a cryptic order which lacks application of mind. This would cause prejudice to the petitioner in the given the facts and circumstances as he would face an order of non bailable warrant in a case of bailable offence. Further according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Advocate for the petitioner was very much present when the said order dated 9 April 2025 was passed, which was overlooked by the learned Magistrate.
In such circumstances, such order would be contrary to law. Revenue would seek time for instructions today. However, fairly he would not oppose this limited relief sought for by the petitioner at this stage.The order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is quashed and set aside.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1427
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - issuance of the notice u/s 148 by the JAO having regard to the provision contained in Section 151A of the said Act - HELD THAT:- Petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the said notice issued under Section 148 of the said Act by way of filing of writ petition after the assessment order has been passed.
Petitioner not being afforded with appropriate opportunity to respond and there being infraction in complying with the SOP - Admittedly, in this case, when the notice was issued, the limitation period was fast approaching, having regard thereto to a limited period was afforded to the petitioner for responding to the said show cause notice. The same cannot be said to be de hors the provisions of the SOP. This apart, the petitioner had duly responded to the said show cause notice within the time specified and did not raise any objection as regards non-compliance of SOP. The aforesaid contention made by the petitioner is an afterthought and cannot be accepted by this Court.
Non-supply of essential documents - The petitioner has acknowledged to have received the copy of the excel sheet though the petitioner claims that some other documents were necessary for it to give appropriate response.
WP dismissed.
This Court is loath to accept the writ petition and is refusing to entertain the petition on the ground of alternative remedy, the petitioner should be afforded with some more time to approach the appellate authority - As in the event the petitioner approaches the appellate authority within four weeks from the date, the appellate authority, having regard to the observation made herein and taking note of the fact that the writ petition was pending before this Court for some time, shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits by deciding all points raised by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1426
Suo moto intimation u/s 154 - enhanced the chargeable income by disallowing certain deductions claimed u/s 36 (1) (va) without affording the petitioner any opportunity of being heard - HELD THAT:- The impugned order was passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and therefore, the grounds on which the earlier decision had been set aside, stood addressed.
While appeal before the CIT(A) was pending, it had also filed a rectification application before the CPC against the intimation enhancing its income - The petitioner succeeded in this application, and by an order dated 18.05.2023, the Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, passed a rectification order, rectifying the intimation u/s 143 (1) (a) by restoring the returned income to Rs. 28,63,160/-.
Clearly, the CPC cannot continue to rectify and re-rectify the intimation under Section 143 (1) (a) repeatedly. This aspect has not been considered by the ACIT while passing the impugned order.
We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the ACIT to consider the matter afresh. ACIT shall also examine whether it can re-rectify the intimation after the same has already been rectified by the CPC.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1425
Deduction u/s 36 (1) (iii) - shares purchased and held by the appellant of its group companies - shares as stock-in-trade - interest paid in respect of money borrowed for utilisation in the purchase of said shares - HELD THAT:- This Court concludes that appellant had intention to do business of trading even in case of shares of M/s Vardhman Polytex Ltd. and does not show its intention to keep the shares of M/s Vardhman Polytex Ltd. as an asset, which is apparent from the record as well. Since appellant had been selling the shares of M/s Vardhman Polytex Ltd also, at different intervals of time, therefore, it can safely be concluded that shares of M/s Vardhman Polytex Ltd purchased by the appellant should also be treated as stock-in-trade just like shares of other companies purchased by the appellant, and not as an investment.
Therefore, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent-revenue.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1424
Cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 276B r/w sec 278B - Whether the offence under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is compoundable under Section 279(2) of the Act? - HELD THAT:- The verbatim of Section 279 (2) makes it crystal clear that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or a Director General of Income Tax Act may also suo motu exercise their power of compounding the offence. The instructions to the subordinate authorities in terms of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Central Board of Direct Tax, is obviously for the purpose of proper administration of the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
A form has been prescribed for an application to be made by any person desiring for compounding of any offence but even the instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, nowhere debars the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or a Director General of Income Tax Act to suo motu exercise the power of composition of the offences; more so when the amount has been deposited with stipulated interest before filing of the complaint.
This Court is of the considered view that since the complainant did not file the complaint before deposit of the T.D.S. amount with interest by the petitioners and also not even immediately after that; may be with ignorance that such amount has been deposited; after a period of more than three years of the deposit of the said defaulted amount with stipulated interest thereon, the complaint case was filed. In such facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner, as prayed for by the petitioners, be allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1423
Assessment proceedings culminated in the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) r/w Section 144 (C) (13) - petitioner’s grievance that the said appeal has not been decided as yet - To compound the petitioner’s grievance, the entire demand has been recovered by adjusting the refunds due to the petitioner for subsequent assessment years
Revenue states, on instructions, that the delay has been on account of the petitioner’s appeal being transferred to various authorities. She states that currently the same stands transferred to CIT-44 and the reference has been made by the said authority to secure the documents and other material from the predecessor authorities (IAS).
HELD THAT:- As we do not consider it apposite to pass any order except to direct the concerned appellate authority to decide the petitioner’s appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of twelve weeks from today after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1422
Reopening of assessment - bogus purchases - ITAT perused the material on record and found that the Assessee had in fact established that its purchases were genuine - HELD THAT:- ITAT had concluded that the Assessee had established the purchases made from the named two persons and the same could not be considered as bogus. Thus, the findings of fact, which are premised on a cogent material cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as perverse or unsustainable.
Plain reading of the assessment order indicates that the AO had only enhanced 20 percent of the purchases by accepting that the purchases were genuine, although not from the same parties. This is not a case of accommodation entry. However, CIT(A) proceeded further to hold that the purchases itself are bogus by alluring to the assessment orders passed in respect of the two persons from whom the purchases have been made.
There is no material on record which would substantiate that the purchases reflected were accommodation entries. There is no allegation or finding that cash had been received back by the Assessee in respect of the purchases reflected in its books of account. On this ground alone the present appeal ought to have been dismissed.
........
|
9911796707
