|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1442 Records
-
2025 (5) TMI 1262
Delayed filing of returns and delayed payment of taxes for the financial years 2018-2019 and subsequent periods - Liability to pay late fee and interest under Sections 47 and 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Evidently, the earlier application of the petitioner firm to deposit the demanded amount in forty-eight equal monthly installments is not as per the statutory prescriptions contained in Section 80 of the CGST Act. In such obtaining fact situation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner firm can be provided another opportunity to submit a fresh application renewing its request to pay the demanded amount in twenty-four equal monthly installments, as permissible under Section 80 of the CGST Act. Accordingly, leave is granted to the petitioner firm to file a fresh application for allowing it to deposit the demanded amount in twenty-four equal monthly installments in terms of Section 80 of the CGST Act within a period of 3 [three] weeks from today. In the application, the petitioners could raise the ground[s] regarding untenability relating to liability self-assessed. It is observed that in the event such an application is filed by the petitioner firm, the Commissioner [the respondent no. 2] shall consider such application in terms of Section 80 of the CGST Act read with Rule 158 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and afford a personal hearing and thereafter, issue an order on merits. It is further observed that the order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, preferably an outer limit of 1 [one] month from the date of submission of such application.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1261
Challenge to SCN and consequent orders - challenge to N/N. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limit for issuance and adjudication of show cause notices and passing of order - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the date fixed for personal hearing of the Petitioner is 28th August, 2024 which is the same as the date on which the impugned order has been passed.
A reading of the impugned order makes it clear that the same has been passed in a mechanical manner without duly considering the reply of the Petitioner or affording the Petitioner with an opportunity to be heard -This Court is of the opinion that since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the said SCN and the consequent impugned order have been passed without hearing the Petitioner, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits.
The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1260
Demand raised without considering the reply of the SCN - No opportunity for personal hearing - Challenging the SCN and impugned order - HELD THAT:- Upon perusing the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the same has been passed after considering the reply of the Petitioner. In addition to that, an opportunity for personal hearing was also provided to the Petitioner, followed by the issuance of a reminder for the same. However, the opportunity for personal hearing was not availed by the Petitioner.
Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not merit any interference of this Court and a challenge, if any, shall be taken up by the Petitioner before the appellate authority in appeal.
Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted time till 10th July, 2025, to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
The present petition is disposed of in said terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1259
Challenge to SCN and adjudication orders - challenge to N/N. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing of order -HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the present petitions involve a challenge to the Notifications, and a legal issue regarding the non-availability of the utility for submission of IGST at the relevant point in time, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
The matter is remanded back in respect of both impugned Show Cause Notices to enable the Petitioner to be heard on merits and then for the Adjudicating Authority to pass a detailed adjudication order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1258
Extension of time limit of issuance of SCN u/s 73 / 74 - Validity of Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax - procedural requirements under Section 168A for prior to the issuance of notifications - cancellation of the registration with retrospective effect - reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN not considered - Challenging the SCN and impugned order - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that the same does not merit any interference of this Court and a challenge, if any, shall be taken up by the Petitioner before the appellate authority in appeal.
Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted time till 10th July, 2025, to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
It is also made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present petition shall have no bearing upon the decision of the appellate authority.
However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notification is left open. Any order passed by the appellate authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. [2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER].
The present petition is disposed of in said terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1257
Classification of PPSB (Polypropylene Spunbond) bed sheets - denial of refund application in form RFD 06 - HELD THAT:- Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting, It appears that that the Hon’ble Division Bench had observed that the Appellate Authority failed to take note that the word “made” is not found in sub-para 2 of the notes under Chapter 63. Proceeding on such premise and by noting that neither the authorities nor the Court can add words or substitute words in a statute and has to read the statute as it is and the plain meaning should be gathered from the statute, had concluded that the error by misreading the statute led to wrong finding that the bed sheets in question have to be taxed at 12% instead of 5%. It also appears that the Division Bench has taken note of the fact that Chapter heading 6304 which deals with other furnishing articles excluding those of heading 9404, there is a separate heading for bed sheets. Under the said heading in the tariff item 63041930 bed sheets and bed covers of manmade fibres have been specifically mentioned.
This apart the Division Bench also noted that the Appellate Authority has misread paragraph 2(a) of the Notes of Chapter 63 by substituting the words “goods of Chapter 56 to 62” by “articles made of Chapter 56 to 62”. This has led to an inherent wrong decision in holding that the PPSB Bed Sheets is to be considered in Chapter 5603 and to be taxed at 12% instead of 5% as claimed by the appellant.
In the instant case, considering that in identical set of facts, similar mistake has been committed by the Appellate Authority, I am of the view that the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 02.09.21, 17.09.2021, 05.10.2021, 30.11.2021, 13.01.2022, 18.02.2022, 11.03.2022, 19.07.2022, 07.06.2022, 16.06.2022, 10.05.2022, 09.06.2022, 13.06.2022, 27.07.2022, 10.08.2022, 27.07.2022, 14.09.2022, 25.11.2022, 22.08.2022, 15.12.2022 and 19.05.2023 to the extent the same deals with the classification of PPSB Bed Sheets cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly modified.
The respondents are directed to process the refund applications of the petitioner on the basis of the observations made herein along with the statutory interest as may be applicable under section 56 of the said Act within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Accordingly the writ petitions stand disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1256
Extension of time limits for adjudication under the GST regime - Validity of Notification no. 56/2023-CT - procedural requirements under Section 168A for prior to the issuance of notifications - Challenged a Summary of SCN and impugned order - HELD THAT:- It is submitted at the Bar that the legality, validity and propriety of the Notification no. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023 is under examination of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/S HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others in Petition [2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER]. It is also submitted that the Notification no. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023 has been interfered with by a Judgment of the Coordinate Bench.
Thus, it is observed, in the interim, that there shall be no coercive action against the petitioner in terms of the Order date 27.04.2024, till the returnable date.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1255
Rejection of appeal u/s 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 - attachment of the petitioner’s bank account - HELD THAT:- Noting the fact that no personal hearing was offered to the petitioner as reflected in the show cause notice dated 12th September 2023, though in the order dated 5th March 2024 it has been stated that the Registered Tax Payer had failed to give any reply or avail the opportunity of personal hearing and that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation without there being adjudication on merit, having regard to the scheme of the Act which permits the registered tax payer a further opportunity to challenge the adjudication order and since, the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, the matter should be remanded back to the appellate authority for its adjudication on merits.
Further, taking note of the fact that an amount of Rs. 1,10,757/- has been paid by the petitioner towards pre- deposit and in addition thereto Rs. 18,79,96/- has already been recovered from the petitioner and considering the scheme of the said Act which authorizes a RTP to maintain an appeal upon payment of 10 per cent of the amount of tax in dispute, the order of attachment of the petitioner’s bank account which has been effected vide order issued in form GST DRC – 13 dated 19th September 2024, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1254
Challenge to SCN - cancellation of the GST registration - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the cancellation of GST registration can also completely bring the business of any entity or individual to a standstill, it is directed that the proceedings in the Show Cause Notice shall be completed at the earliest and in any case within a period of 45 days from now.
A personal hearing shall be given to the Petitioner.
The present petition is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1253
Availment of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) - reply to the SCN not considered by the adjudicating authority - rectification application - seeking to quash the impugned order - HELD THAT:- After perusing the matter, the Court had directed the officer concerned i.e., the Assistant Commissioner – Mr. Ahuja to join the proceedings virtually. Post lunch, on the second call, he has joined the proceedings and explained that the entire reply has been considered. In fact, the initial demand as can be seen from the impugned SCN was to the tune of Rs. 7,74,72,844/- and after considering the reply, the same has been reduced to the amount of Rs. 1.60 crores approximately. He further submits that a rectification application has also been filed under Section 161 of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 and the same is pending consideration before him.
Thus, the Court is of the opinion that in the rectification application, a personal hearing can be afforded to the Petitioner by the concerned official and an order be passed in accordance with law. The date of hearing be communicated to the Petitioner, through the Portal as also through the ld. Counsel who is appearing today.
The petition is disposed of in these terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1252
Seeking permission to withdraw the petition - availment of alternative efficacious remedy - HELD THAT:- Without entering into the merits of the matter, the petition is disposed of as not pressed at this stage. The appellate authority to consider the time spent by the petitioner as bona fide for consideration of the issue of delay in preferring the appeal if the petitioner files appeal within two weeks from today. The petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1251
Application for grant of anticipatory bail - modus operandi involving the generation of fake invoices and paper firms - ineligible Input Tax Credit - illegal circulation of copper scrap sourced from the local market without proper invoicing - GST evasion - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of Department that applicant has not answered the question truthfully or whatever information given by applicant is incorrect. In the reply to the application and in oral contention, it has been stressed that applicant has not joined the investigation but no submissions were made qua the fact that applicant was examined on 15.2.2025. It shows that applicant is not shying away from joining the investigation but apprehending his arrest, he informed the court.
The conduct of accused was assailed and it was argued that applicant is not entire for discretionary relief but the record of Department reflects otherwise that applicant did appear before Department and gave answers, veracity of which is not disputed till arguments in this matter. No apprehension has been expressed that applicant might flee from the course of justice and even if such apprehension exist, no concrete material placed on record to buttress this contention. Therefore, arguments on behalf of Department cannot be accepted for denying the relief sought by applicant.
Hence, it is directed that applicant shall be admitted in bail in case Department reaches a conclusion in terms of section 69 of GST Act that applicant is required to be arrested, subject to furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety of like amount who shall be blood relation of applicant and further subject to following conditions
Thus, the application stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1250
Rejection of condonation of delay of one day in filing the return - plausible reason for the petitioner to have refrained from filing its ITR - HELD THAT:- We accept that the petitioner did face some hardship in uploading its ITR form. We are persuaded to accept this also for the reason that there is no plausible reason for the petitioner to have refrained from filing its ITR after having commenced the process and uploaded two vital documents that were to be filed along with the ITR. More importantly, the petitioner’s income could be ascertained on the basis of these documents.
The provisions u/s 119 (2) (b) of the Act have been enacted with the primary object of relaxing the conditions where a case of genuine hardship is made out. In the present case, the petitioner’s inability to file the return would clearly fall within this category. Thus, the denial of relaxation of a single day in a case where the petitioner had already commenced the process of uploading the documents and its return, in our view, is unsustainable.
It is well settled that every statutory power is also coupled with a duty to exercise such power. The learned PCIT, having been conferred the power to relax the conditions in cases of genuine hardship, was required to exercise that power in the petitioner’s case, as the existence of genuine hardship was evident from the facts, as set out above.
The impugned order is set aside. We direct that the petitioner’s application under Section 119 (2) (b) be allowed and the delay of one day in filing the ITR for AY 2016-17 be treated as condoned.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1249
Recovery of cost imposed from Managing Director of company - deduction of TDS @ 2% by the JBVNL from running account bills for supply of material by the petitioner and also retention of amount representing 2% of the value of the Work Order for supply of materials towards the TDS liability so demanded by the Income Tax Department
The present review has been filed by the incumbent, who is holding the post of Managing Director, JBVNL for review of part of order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, by which, the amount directed to be paid in favour of the writ petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs, has been directed to be re-paid by the incumbent, holding the post of Managing Director, JBVNL - HELD THAT:- There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’.
Further, the law is well settled that a review petition, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”, as has been settled in the case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [1997 (10) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT]
The amount which ought to have been transmitted to the Income Tax Department, has been kept with the possession of the JBVNL and therefore, the Coordinate Bench has taken note of the said order in the order dated 08.04.2024 wherein, it has been ordered that if the amount of Rs. 2,90,32,000/- would have been transmitted in the account of Income Tax Department, which was taken as a source under the Income Tax Act, 1961, then, the same having said to be excess to the liability of the present petitioner would have refunded back by the Income Tax Department in favour of the writ petitioner, respondent herein but the said amount has been kept in the account of JBVNL leading to financial loss to the writ petitioner and during the relevant time, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, JBVNL, was the review petitioner as such, the Coordinate Bench has made such reference therein.
In addition thereto, further observation has been made that due to laches and casual approach taken by the JBVNL which was being headed by the present review petitioner, the petitioner has been made to suffer by depriving him from his legal entitlement to get the amount.
Law is well settled that if any individual has committed any illegality on whatever reason, it will be the accountability of the individual concerned to take its liability in stead of shifting it upon the State. If the liability will be allowed to be shifted, then the question would be that why the State Exchequer while dealing with the public money, will be allowed to be overburdened due to laches committed on the part of the State authority.
At the cost of repetition, it needs to refer herein that review petitioner was party before the writ Court as well as before the Review Court wherein the issue involved in the present lis was adjudicated at length and the same has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court [2024 (12) TMI 1572 - SC ORDER] therefore, the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court has attained its finality.
This Court, considering the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the scope to exercise the power of review, is of the view that whatever has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the review petitioner-is not falling under the fold either of the error apparent on the face of the order or any document said to be not brought on record in spite of due diligence, hence, no ground is available to review that part of the order [2024 (5) TMI 540 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT].
-
2025 (5) TMI 1248
Assessment u/s 153C as barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- Documents and information relating to the Petitioner were handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over the case of the Petitioner is correct. Thus, the documents in question were received by the AO of the Petitioner on 22.06.2022. In the given facts, the period of limitation, as stipulated u/s 153B of the Act, for passing an assessment order is to be reckoned from the said date.
As in terms of Section 153B of the Act, the AO was required to pass an assessment order within a period of twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the documents were received, that is, from the end of the financial year 2022-23. Therefore, the last date for completion of the assessment was 31.03.2024, which has since passed. The present petition was listed on 26.03.2025, and admittedly, no order of assessment has been passed as of the date of filing of the petition.
The present petition is allowed and the proceedings commenced pursuant to the impugned notice are set aside.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1247
LTCG - denial of deduction u/s 54F - whether the new asset purchased is ‘a residential house’ - an expression used in Section 54 and 54F? - HELD THAT:- We find no infirmity with the decision of the ITAT in holding that the Assessee could not be denied the deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that she holds more than one residential unit.
We also find that there has been no failure on the part of the Assessee to truly and fairly disclose all the material facts in her return. Assessee had fairly disclosed about the sale of the original asset, in respect of which capital gains had arisen as well as about the house property purchased from the said sale proceeds.
The configuration of ownership of the property, as recorded in the South Delhi Municipal Corporation records for D-6/5, does not lead to the conclusion that there was any failure on the part of the Assessee in disclosing the material facts relevant for claiming the deduction sought by the Assessee.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1246
Nature of receipt - subsidies received from the State governments - revenue or capital receipts - Assessee had received the Entertainment Tax Subsidy [ETS] from the State Governments in respect of the multiplexes operated by it in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra - Assessee had collected entertainment tax but did not deposit the same with the concerned authorities; it adjusted the same towards the ETS - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the purpose of the Scheme in the present case is also to encourage the development of the multiplex theatre complexes, which are capital intensive in nature. Thus, the questions sought to be raised are squarely covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Chaphalkar Brothers Pune [2017 (12) TMI 816 - SUPREME COURT
-
2025 (5) TMI 1245
Validity of notice issued u/s 143(2) - Income Tax Office jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 143(2) - notice to be issued either of the two authorities - ‘AO’ or ‘the prescribed income-tax authority’ - HELD THAT:- The impugned notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued by the ACIT/DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi. In view of the above, the contention that the said ITO did not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, is devoid of any merit.
The contention that other than the AO, only the authorised Income Tax Officers of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) can issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act as the same would be in furtherance of automation of such process, is also unmerited. This proposition is not supported by the plain language of Section 143(2) of the Act or Rule 12E of the Rules. Rule 12E of the Rules does not confine the power of the CBDT to authorise only the Income Tax Officers of the NaFAC as the prescribed authority for the purposes of Section 142(1) of the Act.
The contention that the prescribed income tax authority can only serve a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act but cannot issue it, is insubstantial.
We are unable to accept that the AO did not have the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices dated 10.07.2024 and 06.09.2024 u/s 142(1) of the Act or that the same are beyond the period of limitation.
Once it is accepted that the AO has the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act – which is also the contention of the petitioner in this case – the AO cannot be faulted for proceeding to complete the assessment.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1244
Gain from purchase and sale of the properties as business income for which the assessee has opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme - HELD THAT:- Tribunal held that 'business' may not mean carrying out trade or commerce or manufacture per se but any activity which has some trapping of a trade, commerce or manufacture would fall within ambit of expression 'in nature of trade or commerce'.
Similarly in the case of CIT Vs Jawahar Development Association [1980 (1) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] relied on by CIT(A) / NFAC has held that where, purchase is made solely and exclusively with intention to resell at a profit and, purchaser has no intention of holding property for himself or otherwise enjoying or using it, presence of such an intention raises a strong presumption that transaction is an adventure in nature of trade.
Since the assessee is continuously engaged in purchase and sale of properties, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC treating the profit from such sale of properties after deducting the cost of acquisition and related expenses as business income. We therefore uphold the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee - Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1243
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - interest income - as per DR income was not earned from cooperative society operation but from deposits made in banks and other institutions - HELD THAT:- We note that under similar facts and circumstances, various decisions including the decision of Katwa-Kalna Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.[2023 (6) TMI 1483 - ITAT KOLKATA] have held that interest income earned on statutory deposits made in compliance with the directives issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
We further note that the ld. CIT(A) in the previous assessment years i.e. A.Ys 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 vide orders dated 30.09.2019, 03.02.2020 & 03.02.2020 respectively had accepted the assessee’s claim of deduction of interest income and allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the respective additions.
We find force in the assessee’s contentions and the revenue has not brought any contrary material or evidence to demonstrate any change in facts or legal positions which may warrant different view in the present year.
It is settled law that the principle of consistency must be followed and we place reliance on the decision of Radha Soami Satsang [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT].
We are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) were not justified in denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act to the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the said addition made on account of interest income.
Appeal of assessee is allowed.
............
|
9911796707
