|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1658 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1458
Maintainability of the petitions in view of availability of the alternative remedy of filing statutory appeal under Section 73 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - whether the liability of payment of Value Added Tax would include ‘service tax’ component collected by the petitioner from customers or not? - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is required to calculate the taxable turnover of its sales under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act by excluding the amount of turnover of sales not subjected to tax under the Act and turnover of goods declared exempt and in case of turnover of sales in case of the works contract, charges towards labours, service and other like charges and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Accordingly, VAT is payable upon the taxable turnover and as per the provision of Section 3 read with Section 14 of the Act, it provides for option for payment of lump sum tax in lieu of tax on turnover of sales.
On perusal of the interpretation made by the respondent authority, whether the ‘service tax’ component collected by the petitioner could be said to be ‘sale price’ or not is answered by this Court in the case of Ambuja Cement Ltd. [2016 (4) TMI 1399 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] while deciding the issue as to whether the total taxable turnover of purchases liable for purchase tax would include ‘Value Added Tax’ component or not. It is pertinent to note that definition of ‘taxable turnover of purchase’ is mirror image of definition of ‘taxable turnover of sales’ under Section 2(33).
When the word “includes” is used in the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act, it is clear that legislature does not intend to restrict the definition, it makes the definition enumerative and not exhaustive as held by this Court and therefore, in ordinary meaning, it has to be extended to bring within the term certain matters which in its ordinary meaning it may or may not comprise. Inclusion of the words “duties levied or leviable under the Central Excise Tariff At, 1985 or Customs Act, 1962” and any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods before the delivery thereof would indicate that the legislator intend to include only those duties/taxes within the purview of the expression “sale price”. Therefore, the intention of the legislature to exclude the service tax component from the ambit of sale price is clear, as otherwise, the same would also have found place in the categories enumerated thereunder.
The impugned orders passed by the respondent authority setting aside the permission granted under Section 14D of the Act for payment of composition tax only on the ground that petitioners have not paid the VAT on the ‘service tax’ component which ought to have been included in the sale price is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners and on the same analogy for excluding ‘Value Added Tax’ from purchase price in case of Ambuja Cement Ltd., the petitioners are not liable to include ‘the service tax’ component as part of the ‘sales price’ so as to pay VAT thereon.
All these petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1457
Attachment of the properties on default of return of deposits - Prayer for quashing and setting aside the auction process in respect of sale of the subject property - challenge to auction in which the Petitioner itself is declared as successful auction purchaser - alleged suppression of material facts in contravention of section 55 (1) (a) of the Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 - HELD THAT:- The attachment of the properties on default of return of deposits u/s. 4 of the MPID Act starts with a non-obstante clause and it provides that when the Government is satisfied that any Financial Establishment has failed to return the deposit after maturity or on demand by the depositor, or to pay interest or other assured benefit, or to provide the service promised against such deposit, or where the Government has reason to believe that any Financial Establishment is acting in a calculated manner detrimental to the interest of the depositors with an intention to defraud them and if the Government is further satisfied that such financial Establishment is not likely to return the deposits or pay the interest or other benefits assured, the Government may in order to protect the interest of the depositors, issue an order in the Official Gazette attaching the money or other property believed to have been acquired by such Financial Establishment either in its own name or in the name of any other person from out of the deposits collected by such Financial Establishment.
In the present case, Respondent No. 3 is duly constituted Competent Authority and it has exercised power u/s. 5(3) by applying to the designated Court and subject property was attached. The Designated Court u/s. 6 of the MPID Act has passed an order after investigation, to release the subject property from attachment u/s. 7(6) of the MPID Act - It is therefore clear that the subject property was first vested in the Competent Authority by operation of law and thereafter sold through the auction under process of law and the attachment of ED has been lifted by the Designated Court u/s. 7(6) of the MPID Act.
It is therefore clear that the enforcement of right of the ‘secured creditor’ flows from an agreement / instrument / document and ‘secured asset’ means property on which ‘security interest’ is created. Security interest means right, title or interest of any kind upon the property created in favour of the secured creditor including mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment or any right, title or interest of any kind on tangible asset retained by the secured creditor etc.
The very basis of the Petitioner’s case seeking refund of the purchase price paid, is that the subject property cannot be utilized by the Petitioner. This argument is based on the alleged non-availability of the title deeds. Once the subject property vested in the Competent Authority and is sold to the Petitioner under due process of law and once the attachment of ED is lifted by the order of designated MPID Court, nothing more is required, for the Petitioner to enjoy the subject property.
Having held that the Petitioner is not entitled to refund of the principal amount (purchase price paid), it is not necessary to labour any further about grant of interest as claimed by the Petitioner or otherwise. For the same reason, even the Petitioner’s prayer for damages / compensation is only stated to be rejected.
There are no merits in the Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1456
Levy of deficit stamp duty and penalty - whether in a case where a sale is conducted by a Court or under the aegis of Court (like in the present case), the stamp authorities can embark upon a journey to determine the true market value of the property [sold in an auction conducted by the Court or under the aegis of the Court] and levy stamp duty thereon? - HELD THAT:- The issue raised in the present Petition is squarely covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of SPECTRUM CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS LLP VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH JOINT DISTRICT REGISTRAR, COLLECTOR OF STAMPS, RAIGAD [2022 (1) TMI 1469 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as well as a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ASL Vyapar Pvt Ltd [2022 (11) TMI 1385 - SUPREME COURT].
In the case of Spectrum Constructions also the Petitioner was a successful bidder for purchase of certain immovable property for an amount of Rs. 1,66,57,920/-. This property was purchased by Spectrum Constructions pursuant to a sale conducted by a Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under the Chairmanship of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha (former Chief Justice of India), to oversee the disposal of lands held by a company called PACL Ltd. The reserve price fixed for the property was Rs. 83,28,960/- and the bid of the Petitioner was higher than that. The Petitioner also paid full stamp duty on the consideration paid for purchasing the property in question. Thereafter, the Petitioner (i.e. Spectrum Constructions) received a demand notice from the Stamp Authorities for payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty.
As laid down by the Division Bench in Spectrum Constructions, once the bid of the Petitioner was accepted by the Justice Lodha Committee, and the sale was confirmed at a price bid by the Petitioner, and which was above the reserve price, there was no question of the Stamp Authorities determining any other value. That would be taken as the market value.
This issue has now been conclusively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ASL Vyapar Pvt Ltd. A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that in a Court auction, often the price obtainable may be slightly less as any bidder has to take care of a scenario where the auction may be challenged which could result in passage of time in obtaining perfection of title, with also the possibility of it being overturned - The logic is that an auction of a property by the Court is possibly one of the most transparent methods by which the property can be sold. Thus, to say that even in a Court monitored auction, the Registering Authority would have a say on what is the market price, would amount to the Registering Authority sitting in appeal over the decision of the Court permitting sale at a particular price.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1455
Dishonour of Cheque - Insufficient funds - validity of the complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act, 1881, filed through a Power of Attorney - proceedings initiated on the basis of a compromise deed - HELD THAT:- It is relevant to note that this Court can quash complaints under the NI Act at the pre-trial stage in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC if such unimpeachable material is brought forth by the accused persons which indicates that they were not concerned with the issuance of the cheques or that no offence is made out from the admitted facts.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2022 (4) TMI 1434 - SUPREME COURT] had discussed the scope of interference by the High Court against the issuance of process under the NI Act and it was held that 'to non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not in our opinion be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial Court. Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal process is not merited.'
In line with the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2022 (4) TMI 1434 - SUPREME COURT]], thus, while exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash a complaint at the pre-trial stage, it is pertinent for this Court to examine whether the factual defence is of such impeachable nature that the entire allegations made in the complaint is disproved.
From a perusal of the complaint, it transpires that the complaint mentions that the authorized representative is fully competent to file and sign the complaint and is competent to file evidence by way of affidavit, and do all other acts to pursue the case. The complaint also mentions that attorney possessed personal knowledge of the case.
In the present case from a perusal of the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence, it is evident that the same contains an averment that the authorized representative does possess personal knowledge of the alleged transaction. The degree of knowledge or whether the authorized representative even possess any personal knowledge with regard to the alleged transaction as alleged by the petitioner is a subject matter of trial and cannot be looked into at this stage to quash the complaint and framing of notice under Section 251 of the CrPC. Merely because the complaint, or the pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit does not detail what knowledge or the extent of knowledge possessed by the authorized representative, this Court does not deem it expedient to quash the complaint and notice under Section 251 of the CrPC, especially on the ground of extent of knowledge of the authorized representative - The challenge to the validity of the compromise deed would be decided after the evidence is lead by the parties and cannot be commented upon at this stage and this Court does not deem it apposite to comment or consequently quash the present petition on such ground.
In the present case, while the petitioner has raised questions regarding the incapability of the attorney to file the complaint, or lead pre-summoning evidence on the strength of the Power of Attorney, or the maintainability of the complaint on the basis of a fabricated compromise deed, the same is not impeachable in nature and does not disprove the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint. Such questions can well be determined by the learned MM during the course of trial. The learned MM would arrive at a decision after considering the allegations, and counter allegations raised by the parties, and considering the evidence on record.
This Court finds that the petitioner has, at best, raised questions of fact mixed with law which cannot be examined by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC since it is expedient that the same be left to be adjudicated at the stage of trial when the parties have led their evidence.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1454
Dismissal of appeal on the ground that the authorised signatory of the Petitioner did not sign the same - HELD THAT:- Proper material has been produced to show that the signatory on the appeal memo was indeed authorised to sign the same. In any event, we do not approve of the appellate authorities adopting such shortcuts and dismissing the appeals, even without allowing the appellants to either establish that the signatory was authorised to sign the appeal memo or to place on record resolutions authorising such signatory with the necessary powers. Denial of such opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and fair play, not to mention avoidable harassment and pressure on the Court’s docket.
The impugned order dated 31 July 2024 is set aside - the Petitioner’s appeal restored to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on its merits and per law - appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1453
Levy of penalty u/s 130 of GST Act - violation of principle of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The order impugned though indicates the communication seeking date for personal hearing beyond 10.02.2024, however, no determination/reaction to the said prayer was indicated even in the order impugned, which clearly indicates that the prayer was not even adverted to and therefore, apparently the order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice.
Once a prayer was made seeking a date beyond the date fixed, it was incumbent upon the authority to either grant the same or decline and communicate the same to the petitioner.
The order impugned dated 18.06.2024, Annexure-1, is quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1452
Input tax credit - petitioner in a commercial suit wanted to examine an official from the GST office to prove no input tax credit was received - HELD THAT:- It does become obvious that despite making best efforts, the defendant could not examine the competent official of GST and, therefore, in such a peculiar situation, the learned Trial Court should have rather given one opportunity to call the concerned official from the GST Office situation in Noida, where such record is stated to be available.
Undoubtedly, the petitioner should have been vigilant in the first instance and should have summoned the official from appropriate Branch but keeping in mind the specific stand taken by him and also in view of the question put by him to the plaintiff in cross-examination, the present petition is allowed and petitioner is granted one opportunity to take requisite steps for purposes of summoning the concerned Official.
Both the sides shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 04.11.2024 and learned Trial Court, keeping in mind its board position, would fix up a date for examination of said witness and may, accordingly, issue process to such witness through all permissible modes - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1451
Validity of order - determination of amount of tax has been made without service of order passed under Section 74 of U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2016 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the said order would reveal that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on coming to the conclusion that since the order dated 20.10.2021, which is now impugned in the present writ petition, was not served on the petitioner earlier, it was directed that the petitioner may avail its remedy of appeal within limitation beginning the date of the order i.e. 5.4.2024. A specific relief/remedy was provided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court against the order dated 20.10.2021.
Once a co-ordinate Bench by its order dated 5.4.2024, specifically allowed the petitioner to avail its remedy of appeal and even extended the period of limitation from the date of passing of the order dated 5.4.2024, non filing of the appeal within the limitation provided under the Act and after expiry of the period of limitation, rather long thereafter, filing of the present petition, on the ground sought to be raised cannot be countenanced.
Once in the petition filed by the petitioner on the previous occasion a specific relief has been granted which the petitioner chose not to avail, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1450
Initiation of proceedings u/s 130 of the GST Act or u/s 73/74 of the GST Act - excess stock found at the time of survey - stock at the time of survey was noted by the authority by eye estimation without any physical verification and no video recording of the alleged stock was made - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that survey was conducted at the business premises of the petitioner on 30.11.2018. It is also not in dispute that excess stock was found, which triggered the initiation of the present proceedings against the petitioner. On various occasions, this Court has held that if excess stock is found, then proceedings under sections 73/74 of the GST Act should be pressed in service and not proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act, read with rule 120 of the Rules framed under the Act.
This Court in S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar [2024 (8) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that 'This Court on various occasions has held that if the excess stock was found then the proceedings under Sections 73 & 74 of the UPGST Act will come into play and not proceedings under Section 130 read with Rule 122 of the Act.'.
The law is clear on the subject that the proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act cannot be put to service if excess stock is found at the time of survey.
The impugned order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the respondent no. 5 under section 130 read with section 122 of the UPGST Act as well as the impugned order dated 19.08.2023 passed by the first appellate authority, the respondent no. 4 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1449
Challenge to order passed u/s 74(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - denial of opportunity for a personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The factual matrix is such that the matter is squarely covered by a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in MAHAVEER TRADING COMPANY VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE TAX AND ANOTHER [2024 (3) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been passed in gross violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. The self imposed bar of alternative remedy cannot be applied in such facts. If applied, it would be of no real use. In fact, it would be counter productive to the interest of justice. Here, it may be noted, the appeal authority does not have the authority to remand the proceedings.'
Upon a perusal of record, it appears that the factual matrix is very similar to one in Mahaveer Trading Company's case. There are no reason to take a different stand.
The impugned order dated June 8, 2023 is quashed and set-aside with a direction given to the officer concerned to grant the petitioner another opportunity of filing a fresh reply and thereafter fix a date of hearing and pass a reasoned order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1448
Creation of demand against the petitioner - petitioner being unaware of issuance of the said reminder as well as passing of the orders, could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned orders within the period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd [2024 (7) TMI 1543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] a co-oridiante Bench of this Court inter alia observed and it was held that 'it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab "view notices and orders". On merits, as noted in the earlier orders an other dispute exists whether all replies and annexures to the replies as filed by the assessee were displayed to the assessing officer and whether those have been considered. We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy.'
In view of the submissions made and the judgement in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order impugned dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-16, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1447
Classification of goods - rate of tax - Sodium Bicarbonate (Soda Ash) and Magnesium Sulphate (Epsom Salt) - HELD THAT:- This G.O. directs a levy of sale tax @8% on all chemicals which are not covered under Entry-9 which is headed as dyes and chemicals. A perusal of Entry-9 would show that the goods mentioned above are not enumerated in Entry-9. In a similar situation, a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad while dealing with the product Sodium Hydro Sulphite had, in the Judgment in W.P.No.87 of 2007, held that any chemical which is not enumerated in Entry-9 of VI Schedule would fall within the ambit of G.O.Ms.No.189, dated 07.02.2005 and would be taxable @8% only.
In view of the above Judgment, it would have to be held that all the goods in question would have to be taxed only @8% as they are chemicals and the usage of these chemicals as raw materials would not detract from the categorisation of these goods as chemicals.
The Revision Orders of the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P, Hyderabad dated 22.08.2008 set aside - petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1446
Time Limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Perusal of amendment notified on 26.12.2022 would reveal that it is clarificatory in nature which came in to force w.e.f. 26.12.2022. Since amendment is clarificatory in nature, it would have a retrospective effect. The retrospective effect of Rule 108(3) of the Rules, 2017 has also been considered by the Gujrat High Court in Otsuka Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2024 (4) TMI 282 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and also by the Karnataka High Court in the matter of M/s Hitachi Energy India Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [2024 (7) TMI 53 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT].
Since on the date of passing of the order dated 11.03.2024, the notification already came into force from 26.12.2022 and it is found that it is clarificatory in nature with retrospective effect on the provisions of Rule 108(3) of the Rules, 2017, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay was not justified.
The impugned order dated 11.03.2024 is accordingly quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a afresh order on merits after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1445
Maintainability of appeal to High Court - Imposition of taxability - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/s Evalueserve.com Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (12) TMI 902 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that 'Keeping in view the above and the question of law itself raised, we hold that the appeal is not maintainable and dismiss the same. However, liberty is granted to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.'
Taking into consideration the law as settled by the Division Bench, it is found that in terms of Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, appeal would not lie to the High Court and the appeal would only lie to the Supreme Court.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1444
Levy of GST on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government - HELD THAT:- Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that 'In the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
In view of the said judgment, these petitions are liable to be disposed of on the same terms. Consequently, in these cases, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1443
Challenge to assessment order - discrepancies between the GSTR 3B return of the petitioner - petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the confirmed tax demand has arisen entirely on the basis of discrepancies between the GSTR 3B return of the petitioner and the auto- populated GSTR 2A return. It is also evident that the petitioner was not heard before the tax demand was confirmed. The assessment order was preceded by a show cause notice and intimation. Therefore, the explanation of the petitioner that he was unable to respond to the above on account of being unaware of the same is not entirely convincing. At the same time, in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits, it is inclined to interfere with the impugned order by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a maximum period of 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 dated 03.09.2022 within the aforesaid period of two weeks - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1442
GST liability under applicable GST laws in respect of seigniorage fee paid by the petitioner to the Government - Relevancy of decision made by a Nine Judge Constitution Bench on royalty - HELD THAT:- As decided in TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Upon receipt of the objections / representations from the writ petitioners, the authority concerned shall proceed with the adjudication, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. However, the orders of adjudication shall be kept in abeyance until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decides the issue as to the nature of royalty. It is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision.
Needless to state that on the matters being decided, the writ petitioners if still aggrieved, shall redress their grievance(s), if any, before the appropriate forum, including by filing appeal(s). Insofar as the challenge to the notification as well as the circular, it is open to the writ petitioners to act upon, after the outcome of the case pending before the Nine Judge Constitution Bench.
In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation with in a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1441
Challenge to assessment order - discrepancy between the GSTR-3B return and GSTR-1 return - HELD THAT:- On examining the show cause notice, it is evident that two tables are set out therein. In the first table, the CGST and SGST amounts in GSTR-3B are shown as Rs. 3,33,787/-, whereas in the second table dealing with the difference between the GSTR-3B return and the auto populated GSTR-2A return, the GSTR-3B amounts are specified as Rs. 5,19,362/- both for CGST and SGST. The sum of Rs. 5,19,362/- tallies with the ITC availed of by the petitioner. Thus, the show cause notice is contradictory. In addition, it appears that the reply of the petitioner was not considered in the assessment order.
The assessing officer did not take into account the reply dated 29.09.2023 and record reasons as to why such reply is not satisfactory. Therefore, the impugned assessment order calls for interference - the show cause notice is contradictory. Hence, the impugned assessment order is quashed by leaving it open to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a fresh show cause notice.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1440
Levy of GST on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government - HELD THAT:- Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that 'In the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms insofar as it relates to either the issue of seigniorage fee or mining lease. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1439
Exemption from entry tax on implementation of Bihar Policy for Promotion of New and Renewable Energy Sources, 2011 - exemption claim was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no notification absolving the levy of entry tax during the period in which the construction was carried out - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner’s activity occurred during the period 2016-17. In fact, the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2019 by Section 22, amended Section 174 and extended the validity of notification S.O. 391 dated 10.11.2011 till 30.06.2017. The Assessing Officer obviously has not considered the said notification.
The order of assessment is set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to look at the matter afresh, especially reckoning the notification pointed out by us and the extension of time provided therefrom.
............
|
9911796707
