|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1657 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1537
Cheating - Seeking quashing of FIR - Offence under Sections 420/406/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - According to the Complainant/Respondent No. 2, in the present case, he was induced by the accused to part with a considerable sum of money on, inter alia, the dishonest/false pretext of return (12-15%) besides assuring the repayment of principal amount. - whether the FIR under question can be allowed to be continue or deserves to be quashed in view of the fact that a similar complaint which was filed by the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 was dismissed as withdrawn? - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. & Ors., [2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT], held that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C, if the information discloses a commission of cognizable offence.
In the present case, it is not the case of the Petitioners that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance when the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn. It is pertinent to note that no observations were made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the merits of the case - There is no bar under the Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR while a complaint is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. In fact, the Code provides for a procedure to be followed when there is a complaint and a police investigation in respect of the same offence.
In Supinder Singh [1997 (8) TMI 545 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was dealing with a situation where the Provident Fund Inspector had filed a complaint which was withdrawn and, subsequently, filed a second complaint on the same cause of action before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was held to be not maintainable.
Admittedly, Petitioner No. 2 does not dispute his signature and thumb impression on loan agreement as well as the promissory note but takes a stand that the said documents were got signed by Respondent No. 2 which were blank - The stand of Petitioner No. 2, that he had signed the blank promissory note as well as cheques is difficult to comprehend, in view of the fact, that he is an educated business man and well-versed with the functioning of monetary transactions in ordinary course of the business that he was pursuing. Therefore, the said stand cannot be a bonafide claim.
The facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of FIR under Sections 420/406/506/120B of the IPC registered at P.S. Chittaranjan Park and the consequent chargesheet against Petitioner No. 2 pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is further clarified that since Petitioner No. 1 was not charge-sheeted, therefore, no observation has been made with respect to him.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1536
Dishonour of Cheque - discharge of legal liability or not - rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act - corroboration of statements - Jurisdiction and scope of revisional court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MALKEET SINGH GILL VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [2022 (7) TMI 1455 - SUPREME COURT] that the revisional court does not exercise an appellate jurisdiction and it can only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law - The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The cheque was dishonoured by the bank of the accused on 23.01.2018. The cheque was issued on 21.10.2017 and was to be presented before the drawee bank within three months excluding the date of drawing of the cheque. The cheque was to be presented before the drawee bank on or before 21.01.2018 but it was presented on 23.01.2018 after the lapse of the statutory period of validity of the cheque. Thus, it was rightly dishonoured with an endorsement outdated/state cheque.
In the present case, the learned Trial Court noticed the date of presentation of the cheque before the bank of the complainant but failed to notice that presentation of the cheque before the bank of the complainant was not material and the presentation before the bank of the accused was necessary within three months to confer a cause of action upon the complainant. The learned Trial Court also failed to appreciate the significance of the memo of dishonour, in which the reason for dishonour was mentioned as out dated/state and the fact that such a memo does not confer a cause of action to file complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The learned Appellate Court failed to notice both these aspects. Hence, the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable.
The present appeal is allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are ordered to be set aside. The complaint is dismissed not maintainable. The accused is acquitted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The fine/compensation amount be refunded to the petitioner/accused after the expiry the period of appeal - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1535
Rejection of the petitioner's financial bid due to past unsatisfactory performance and non-deposit of statutory dues - exercise of power under judicial review - challenge to decision-making process by the tendering authority - HELD THAT:- On bare reading of the communication made by the EPF Organization to the petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioner was advised to facilitate the finding of e-nomination by all the employees and also advised to deposit EPF and allied dues to be paid under Section-14B and 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Such instructions were issued, as the petitioner had not deposited the statutory dues and was lacking in its responsibility to comply with the statutory requirements. As a consequence thereof, communication was made to the petitioner vide Annexure-1 dated 06.10.2023 assigning reason as to why its bid was not accepted, even though it was L1 bidder in the process of bidding, keeping in view clause-6.10 of the RFP.
It may be noted that in exercise of power of judicial review in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State or instrumentality of the State, such as Corporation, the Court prima facie concerns whether there has been any infirmity in the decision making process. In that case, the Court can examine whether the decision making process was reasonable, rationale not arbitrary and not violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.
In ERUSIAN EQUIPMENT & CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. [1974 (11) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court held 'When the Government is trading with the public, ‘the democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination in such transactions’. The activities of the Government have a public element and, therefore, there should be fairness and equality. The State need not enter into any contract with anyone, but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure.'
In RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VERSUS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [1979 (5) TMI 144 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court held 'In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is ‘fair play in action’.'
The apex Court also noted that there are inherent limitations in the exercise of power of judicial review in contractual matter. As such, it was observed that the duty to act fairly will vary in extent, depending upon the nature of cases, to which the said principle is sought to be applied. It was further held that the State has the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender, provided it tries to get the best person or the best quotation, and the power to choose is not exercised for any collateral purpose or in infringement of Article 14.
In MASTER MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS METCALFE & HODGKINSON PVT. LTD. [2005 (4) TMI 579 - SUPREME COURT], the apex Court held that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favourtism. However, there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review.
In AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VERSUS NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. [2016 (9) TMI 1292 - SUPREME COURT], the apex Court held that the constitutional courts are concerned with the decision making process. A decision if challenged (the decision having been arrived at through a valid process), the constitutional Courts can interfere if the decision is perverse. However, the constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not substitute its view for that of the administrative authority.
In view of the law laid down by the apex Court, so far as the power of the Court to interfere with the conditions of tender in exercise of judicial review is concerned, there is no iota of doubt that when there is arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the matter of decision making process by the tendering authority, the Court can interfere. But, here is a case where in adherence to the tender conditions, the tendering authority has exercised its power, more particularly, clause-6.10 which gives power to the tendering authority to reject any or all the bids at any time solely based on the past unsatisfactory performance by the bidders. On the basis of the materials available, the tender committee came to a definite conclusion that past performance of the petitioner was unsatisfactory and, therefore, even if it quoted lowest price, the same cannot be accepted.
Thus, the bid submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of non-satisfactory performance in the past relying upon two documents, which have been issued by the RTO, Gajapati and RTO, Nuapada and also due to non-compliance of the requirement by depositing statutory dues.
This Court is of the considered view that rejection of the bid of the petitioner, even though lowest one, is well justified in view of clause-6.10 of the RFP. Therefore, there is no error in the decision making process in rejecting the bid of the petitioner so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of the power under judicial review - the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1534
Liability of tax on supply - secondment of employees - placement of foreign expatriates to aid and assist in the functions being carried out by the writ petitioners - value to be ascribed to the supply of goods and services and which is regulated by Rule 28 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, although payments, as asserted in the counter affidavit, were made, no invoices came to be raised by the writ petitioners entities in connection with the services provided by their related foreign. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that learned counsels had drawn our attention to the prescriptions contained in Para 3.7 of the Circular. It would perhaps be impossible for any of the respondents to assert that once the value of such services were to be treated or accepted to be „Nil’, no further tax implication under the Act would arise.
While the correctness of the position as advocated in terms of that Circular may be questioned on the ground of whether it would be consistent with the statutory provisions or may be viewed as being contentious or contrary to the intent of the Second Proviso to Rule 28 itself, it is constrained to proceed further on the basis thereof - In the facts of the present writ petitions, it is conceded that no invoices were generated. In view of the above and in light of the explicit terms of the Circular, the value of the service rendered would have to be treated as „Nil’. This would lead one to the inescapable conclusion of no perceivable or plausible tax liability possibly being created. Consequently, the proceedings initiated in terms of the impugned SCNs’ and their continuance would be futile and impractical. The impugned SCNs are essentially rendered impotent and would serve no practical purpose.
The impugned SCN is set aside - petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1533
Seeking grant of bail - double jeopardy - main argument of the applicant is with respect to double jeopardy as the applicant has already been released on bail in the offence under CGST Act and the present case involves the same offence, therefore, detention of the applicant in jail would amount punishing him for the second time for the same offence - HELD THAT:- It would be appropriate to understand the legal principle of double jeopardy which prevents an individual from being prosecuted twice for the same offence after being acquitted or convicted. It is designed to protect individual/person from risk of being subjected to multiple prosecution or punishment for the same crime. This principle exists in many legal systems including that in India. The key aspect of double jeopardy includes once same offence, i.e. the rule applies only if the second prosecution is for the same offence as the first. Secondly, final verdict, i.e. double jeopardy protection applies once there is final judgement (either conviction or acquittal).
The purpose is to ensure fairness and prevent abuse of law. In the present case, where the present first information report has been lodged for the offence under IPC and the charge sheet has been submitted after investigation collecting material from the GST department also, the complaint under CGST Act does not involve the same offence, therefore, the argument as placed by learned counsel for the applicant has no legs to stands.
In the facts of the present case, the involvement, knowledge and actions following the deposit determines that the applicant was involved in respect of transactions which he had with fake GST firms which were registered by using PAN Card and Aadhaar Card of the informant - the illegal profits as made by the fake GST firms registered on the basis of PAN and Aadhaar Cards of the informant, were made to appear legitimate by moving money / funds to the Bank accounts of others, may be company or firm or relatives' accounts.
The present case relates to economic offences. Such offence like large scale fraud, money laundering and corruption, are often viewed seriously because they affect the economic fabric of the society. The Courts may deny bail in such cases especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power. In the present case, money trail of crores, which affects the society at large scale, is involved which started from registration of fake firms by using Aadhaar and PAN Cards of the informant who had not applied for such registration.
From the report also it is clear that the discharge application of one of the accused has been rejected and it shows that the charges are proved and once on the basis of material collected chargesheet has been submitted, discharge is rejected, the case of bail is not made out in economic offence where money trail of crores has been found which is a result of registration of fake firms. Offence under the IPC is made out and such accused cannot be dealt with easy hands. The applicant is also charge sheeted hence to be dealt with the same rod.
The Apex Court has, in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT], held that precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have bearing on principle and the consideration will have to be on case-to- case basis on facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.
This is not a fit case for granting bail - the bail applications preferred by the applicant – Sanjay Dhingra are rejected.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1532
Seeking grant of bail - fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC - existence of evidence to establish conspiracy or not - economis offences involving large-scale fraud and money laundering - HELD THAT:- The principal of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" is a fundamental concept in criminal law, where the criminal justice system recognizes the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This principal emphasizes that an accused should ordinarily be granted bail unless there are compelling reasons to detain him in custody. But there are exceptions to the aforesaid principal. While, the general rule favours granting bail, there are several exceptions where courts may deny bail due to specific circumstances.
The present case relates to economic offences. Such offence like large scale fraud, money laundering and corruption, are often viewed seriously because they affect the economic fabric of the society. The Courts may deny bail in such cases especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power. In the present case, money trail of crores, which affects the society at large scale, is involved which started from registration of fake firms by using Aadhaar and PAN Cards of the informant who had not applied for such registration.
The Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2023 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT], has discussed about the constitutional mandate which is higher law and accordingly it is the basic right of person charged of offence and not convicted be ensured and given a speedy trial, thus, where the trial is not proceeding for the reasons not attributed to the accused, the Court unless there are good reasons may well be guided by exercising power to grant bail. This would be true, the trial would take years.
From the report also it is clear that the discharge application of one of the accused has been rejected and it shows that the charges are proved and once on the basis of material collected chargesheet has been submitted, discharge is rejected, the case of bail is not made out in economic offence where money trail of crores has been found which is a result of registration of fake firms. Offence under the IPC is made out and such accused cannot be dealt with easy hands.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy and another, [2023 (2) TMI 1045 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in the economic offences which are having great impact on the society, the court must be slow in exercising discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Law on consideration of the Court to grant or refusal of bail has been settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [2004 (3) TMI 763 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court has held that the court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
The Apex Court has, in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT], held that precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have bearing on principle and the consideration will have to be on caseto-case basis on facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.
Having gone through the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation of offence, role of the applicants as well as reasons given in judgements, this is not found to be a fit case for granting bail - bail application rejected.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1531
Petition filed against the rejection order passed by the respondent - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it appears that the petitioner has made the pre-deposit for filing the appeal on 13.03.2024. Thereafter, the appeal was filed manually by the petitioner on 22.03.2024, which was well within the period of limitation. However, the said appeal was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 26.07.2024 stating that the appeal has to be filed only through online portal. In the meantime, the time limit for filing the appeal was expired, due to which, when the petitioner made an attempt to file an appeal through online portal, the same was not accepted by the portal on the aspect of limitation.
Further, it appears that pursuant to the initial assessment order, the admitted tax amount was also paid by the petitioner on 04.03.2024. When such being the case, this Court is of the view that the justice has to be rendered to the petitioner by providing an opportunity to present their case before the concerned Authority and the matter has to be adjudicated on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 26.07.2024.
The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 26.07.2024 is set aside - Appellate Authority/respondent is directed to take the appeal, which was filed manually by the petitioner on 22.03.2024, on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order - the writ petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1530
Prayer for setting aside and quashing of the orders - grant of refund with interest - expired -E-way bills - HELD THAT:- In the E-way bills, the distance has been mentioned as 978 kms. The E-way bills were generated on 26.12.2022 at 6:27 pm and was valid upto 31.12.2022 till 11:59 pm. It is an admitted position that E-way bills were not extended. As per Rule 138 (10) of the RGST/CGST Rules 2017, validity of E-way bill may be extended within eight hours from the time of its expiry. The vehicle was seized at 5:45 pm at Beawar on 01.01.2023 and the E-way bills were not extended prior to that.
The defence taken up by the petitioner with regard to breakdown of the vehicle because as per the E-way bill is not convincing, the vehicle should have reached Noida on or before 31.12.2022 and as per the defence taken up by the petitioner, the vehicle was at Rajasamand on 31.12.2022. If the vehicle was under repair in Rajasamand on 31.12.2022, there was no possibility of vehicle reaching Noida before the expiry of the period of E-way bill. Petitioner thus should have applied for extension of the E-way bill.
Even if the authorities have not considered the repair bill, it is not inclined to entertain the present petition, as the repair bill which is dated 31.12.2022 are not satisfying, the date on which the E-way bills expired and the date on which the goods should have reached Noida.
There are no force in the present civil writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1529
Challenge to SCN and summary of SCN - jurisdiction to issue SCN - taxability of transaction of sale of securities (i.e. Stock) - HELD THAT:- This Court with regard to the order passed by this Court in M/S PADAM KUMAR JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX DEPARTMENT, RANCHI; JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX; STATE TAX OFFICER, CHAIBASA CIRCLE, CHAIBASA [2024 (7) TMI 1546 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] stating that the issue involved in that writ petition is similar to the present one, where it was held that 'issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in M/S. PADAM KUMAR JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND; JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX; STATE TAX OFFICER, CHAIBASA CIRCLE, JHARKHAND [2024 (7) TMI 1537 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'Considering the contentions made by the learned counsels for the parties, without going into merits of the case, the writ application is disposed of permitting the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law and file an appeal also raising the very issue of jurisdiction that has been raised in this writ petition.'
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1528
Violation of principles of natural justice - lack of knowledge of proceedings originating in the intimation - notices were uploaded in the 'view additional notices and orders' tab of the GST portal - no reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand - petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand - HELD THAT:- Since the documents on record indicate clearly that the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was issued, it is just and appropriate that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order dated 09.09.2023 is quashed subject to condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice with in the aforesaid period - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1527
Rejection of petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation - availment of ITC by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record evidence that an online appeal was filed on 31.01.2024 after remitting the requisite pre-deposit. The assessment order was issued on 09.09.2023 and the period of limitation, without condonation, expired in early December 2023. The 30 day period for condonation would have expired in early January 2024 and the appeal was filed shortly thereafter. In the overall facts and circumstances, this is an appropriate case to direct the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits.
Petition is disposed of by directing the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits subject to being satisfied that the 10% pre deposit was received. The impugned order is set aside for such purpose.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1526
Violation of principles of natural justice - no personal hearing was offered to the petitioner - GST was imposed on amounts payable by the petitioner - trade payable - HELD THAT:- It is unclear from the impugned order as to the basis for imposing GST on total trade payables. It further appears that the amount specified as turnover was taken directly from the balance sheet of the petitioner. Similarly, GST was imposed on employee benefit expenses by taking the amounts from the profit and loss account of the petitioner for the year 2017-18. Once again, it is unclear as to how liability was imposed with regard to employee benefit expenses incurred by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1525
Challenge to assessment order on the ground that a personal hearing was not provided by the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As per sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a personal hearing is mandatory either if requested for or if an order adverse to the tax payer is proposed to be issued. The documents on record include the reply of the petitioner. Such reply deals with each alleged defect. The petitioner also enclosed 10 annexures in support of such reply. In these circumstances, the denial of a personal hearing undoubtedly contravenes the statutory prescription in such regard. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable.
The impugned order dated 19.12.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1524
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Levy of interest and penalty - petitioner’s claim for input tax credit under GSTR – 3B returns in respect of certain months for the period 2018-19 has been confirmed already - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has equally efficacious remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 against the impugned order.
The present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, if he is so advised.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1523
Challenge to assessment order - petitioner submits that the petitioner reply and documents have not been considered while denying the TRAN – 1 credit - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Under Sub Section 11 of Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, the Appellate Authority exercise almost the original jurisdiction and it can call for further reports, make enquiry and consider arguments, documents as may be rationally submitted by the assessee. When the Appellate Authority vested with such an ample power would correct any mistake committed by the assessing authority, this Court finds no grounds to entertain this writ petition.
Therefore, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, if he is so advised against the impugned order.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1522
Challenge to assessment order - mismatch between the GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A returns - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the petitioner was negligent in not monitoring the GST portal, in spite of being a registered person. In these circumstances, the impugned order calls for interference, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order dated 11.10.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to with in two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1521
Challenge to assessment order - failure to consider all the GSTR-3B returns filed by the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner placed on record the GSTR 3B returns for several months. On comparing the impugned order against the GSTR 3B return for the month of May 2022-2023, it is evident that the turnover reflected in one single month has been compared with the turnover reflected in the GSTR 7 return filed by the counter party. Given the fact that the GSTR 7 return is an annual return, the comparison made by the adjudicating authority is undoubtedly unsustainable. At the same time, it should be noticed that the petitioner was provided multiple opportunities but failed to respond to either the notice in GSTR ASMT-10 or the show cause notice.
Also, the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
The impugned order dated 07.09.2023 is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand with in a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice with in the aforesaid period - As a corollary of the assessment order being quashed, the bank attachment stands raised - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1520
Challenge to assessment order - mismatch between the GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A returns - vague SCN - Lack of details in the SCN - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of both the show cause notice and the summary thereof, it is evident that the said show cause notice is vague and does not contain sufficient particulars to enable the taxpayer to effectively show cause in respect of the proposed tax demand. It is also evident that no personal hearing was offered under the show cause notice and the entry in the relevant column is 'not applicable'.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is permitted to issue a fresh show cause with sufficient particulars to enable the petitioner to respond thereto. Further proceedings, if any, shall be undertaken in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1519
Challenge to letter rejecting Petitioner’s bid for providing man power services to Respondent No.2 - rejection of Letter of Intent by which Respondent No.2 asked Respondent No.3 i.e. M/s. Frontier Ex Servicemen Association, Latur to comply with certain conditions for issuance of work order in its favour - Respondent submitted that the Petitioner’s contention of Respondent No.3 having submitted documents of another entity was plainly misconceived - HELD THAT:- Petitioner on a perusal of the said GST Registration Certificate fairly accepted the contention of Respondent No. 3.
The petition being devoid of merit, the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1518
Seeking to quash the order passed by the authority under Section 77 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - seeking to issue direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to participate in the proceeding of the appeal, which has been rejected without giving opportunity of hearing to it - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner preferred appeal, but, however, without complying the requirement of law by depositing 10% of the tax. In that view of the matter, the order dated 28.12.2022 and 15.09.2023 passed by the authority under Section 16 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 vide Annexure-2 & 4 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh by passing appropriate order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, subject to its depositing of 10% of the tax demanded.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
