Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2024 2024 (6) This

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

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 301 to 320 of 1466 Records

• 2024 (6) TMI 1166
  

  Payment of interest for belated filing of returns - excess availment of ITC.

  Payment of interest for belated filing of returns - this issue was responded to by stating that the interest liability was discharged. The petitioner annexed evidence of discharge to the reply - HELD THAT:- A finding was recorded that the interest amount does not tally. On examining the petitioner's reply in comparison with the amounts indicated as payable towards interest, it appears that the amounts tally.

  Excess availment of ITC - the petitioner replied by asserting that excess ITC was not availed of, in support of such submission, the petitioner attached the GSTR 9 return and copies of invoices - HELD THAT:- The petitioner's reply has been completely disregarded and a finding recorded that the tax payer did not reply on this point. In these circumstances, the impugned order and recovery notice warrant interference.

  The impugned order in original dated 30.12.2023 and recovery notice dated 13.05.2024 are set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1165
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits - petitioner was unaware of proceedings and therefore could not participate in the same - mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the tax proposal related to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. Such proposal was confirmed on account of the petitioner not filing the reply to the show cause notice. By taking into account the assertion that the petitioner could not participate in proceedings on account of being unaware of such proceedings, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits by putting the petitioner on terms.

  The impugned order dated 28.12.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1164
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits - reversal of Input Tax Credit to the extent of credit notes issued by the petitioner's suppliers - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal relates to the credit notes reflected in the auto populated GSTR 2A. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Input Tax Credit was not availed of for the value of such credit notes. By taking the said submission into account and the assertion that the petitioner did not participate in proceedings on account of not being aware of the same, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. In this connection, it should be noticed that the petitioner remitted 12.5% of the disputed tax demand while filing the appeal.

  The impugned order dated 23.08.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1163
  

  Valuation of goods for working out the refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) to be sanctioned - HELD THAT:- There is nothing in the rules to indicate nor the rules mention anywhere that it is only the net realisation value which has to be considered. The rule states the value of the goods declared in the GST Invoice. The value in the GST Invoice as declared by petitioner is FOB value of USD 224846.75 - the value of the goods that has to be considered for refund would be USD 224846.75 and if there is a discrepancy in the value in the corresponding shipping bill, the lower of the two values should be sanctioned as refund.

  The impugned order dated 25th August 2020 is set aside - matter is remanded to respondent no. 1 to process the refund application in accordance with law.

  Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1162
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - SCN was uploaded on the portal but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode - petitioner was unaware of such show cause notice and did not reply to the same - HELD THAT:- The petitioner's reply dated 29.07.2022 indicates that the sales turnover as per the return in Form CMP-08 was Rs. 6,37,595/-. In the impugned order, the turnover of Rs. 5,47,405/- was taken into account. It appears that this sum was compared with the purchase value as per the supplier's GSTR 1 statement. The tax proposal was confirmed on the basis that the tax payer did not respond to the show cause notice. In view of the assertion that the tax payer could not participate in proceedings on account of being unaware of the same, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity by putting the petitioner on terms.

  The impugned order dated 18.08.2023 is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1161
  

  Extension of time in terms of the proviso to Section 140 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order in appeal dated 30th October 2023 passed by Respondent No. 3 is set aside and Respondent No. 3 is directed to denovo adjudicate petitioner’s appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of the order passed by Respondent No. 2 in the Application dated 27th October 2017. Before passing any order, Respondent No. 3 will give an opportunity of being heard to petitioner with prior notice of atleast seven working days.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1160
  

  Detention of goods - levy of penalty - absence of the delivery challan - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record the Advance Authorisation Certificate. The said document specifies the name and address of the Karnataka Unit to which the goods were transported. The GST Registration Certificate of the petitioner specifies the list of additional places of business. This list includes the Karnataka Unit to which the goods were transported. The Bill of Entry is on record as also the E-way Bill. The E-way Bill indicates the name of the exporter.

  It is certainly arguable that the delivery challans are required to be sent directly by the principal to the job worker in cases wherein the goods moved directly to the job worker. When these facts and circumstances are considered cumulatively, this is an appropriate case to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's request for release of goods expeditiously subject to production of relevant delivery challans.

  The writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the order and directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner's request for release of goods.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1159
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - Failure to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner - Imposition of liability for cess along with penalty - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such order was preceded both by an intimation and a show cause notice. In reply to such show cause notice, the petitioner replied by submitting details of purchases made by him and outward supplies made by him. It is also clear from the impugned order that a personal hearing was not offered to the petitioner because the petitioner did not opt for the same. Sub-section (4) of Section 75 mandates that a personal hearing be provided if an order adverse to the tax payer is proposed to be issued.

  Interference is warranted but by taking into account the fact that the petitioner's liability for payment of cess, from the electronic credit ledger or otherwise, is not seriously disputed, the interest of justice warrants that the revenue interest be protected.

  The matter is remanded for reconsideration on condition that the petitioner remits 15% of the amounts payable towards cess under the impugned order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1158
  

  Recovery of Tax dues - Challenging the proceedings of the 1^st respondent, requesting the 4^th respondent to stall the payment if any payable to the petitioner - Garnishee order - petitioner contends that the impugned proceedings do not contain Document Identification St Number (DIN), and without generating the DIN number - HELD THAT:- It is found from the impugned proceedings that they do not contain any DIN number. In view of the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Government of Andhra Pradesh, the impugned proceedings dated 10.05.2024 issued by the 1^st respondent, without generating the DIN number would have no legs to stand in the eye of law and the said proceedings are liable to be set aside.

  Accordingly, impugned proceedings dated 10.05.2024 are set aside. However, the Department is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, and the petitioner shall cooperate with the Department in all respects in completion of the Assessment Order, which is stated to be pending for consideration before the 1^st respondent.

  The writ petition is allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1157
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits - petitioner was unable to respond to the show cause notice or participate in personal hearings on account of various personal difficulties - mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B returns - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal pertained to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B returns. Such order records that the tax proposal is confirmed because the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice. In the facts and circumstances outlined above, the interest of justice warrants that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits, by putting the petitioner on terms.

  The order impugned dated 30.12.2023 is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the said period, the petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1156
  

  Principles of natural justice - denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits - notices and the impugned order were uploaded in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal - mismatch between the GSTR-3B and the auto-populated GSTR-2A - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice or attend the personal hearing. It is also clear that the tax proposal pertains to the mismatch between the returns filed by the petitioner and the auto-populated GSTR-2A.

  The impugned order dated 28.11.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration subject to the 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 - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1155
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits - unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order - notice and orders were uploaded on the “view additional notices and order tab of the GST portal” and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode - reversal of ITC - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal pertained exclusively to supplies received from Kiran Distributors. The petitioner has placed on record copies of relevant invoices issued by the said supplier, the bank statement relating to payments made to such supplier and the relevant ledger account. In these circumstances, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.

  The impugned order dated 27.09.2023 is set aside on 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 - petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1154
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - amounts paid by the petitioner towards tax and interest were not taken into consideration - reasonable opportunity was not provided - Reversal of ITC - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the respondent did not take into consideration the payment made by the petitioner under payment receipt dated 06.05.2023. Consequently, the impugned order requires reconsideration.

  The impugned order dated 19.07.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1153
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - SCN and impugned order were uploaded on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode - mismatch between the GSTR 3B returns and GSTR 2A - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice or attend the personal hearing. The petitioner has placed on record proof that the petitioner's electronic credit ledger was debited to the extent of Rs. 90,000/-. Since learned Additional Government Pleader does not have instructions in this regard, the respondent may verify whether such payment was towards the tax liability under the impugned order. Subject to such verification, the interest of justice warrants that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner.

  The petition is disposed of by directing that the impugned order dated 31.08.2023 be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply in respect thereof within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1152
  

  Validity of provisional attachment order passed under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - expiry of one year from the date the order is made - HELD THAT:- It is conceded by the respondent that provisional attachment order was issued on 27.01.2022 and thereafter no fresh attachment order has been issued.

  It is held that the provisional attachment of the Bank Account No. 1711210216080620 with AU Small Finance Bank in the name of petitioner has ceased to have effect - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1151
  

  Deletion of temporary registration bearing registration - no e-way bill generated for the said vehicle - absence of the documents which are required along with the transport vehicle - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the Rule 16 of the GST Rules, sub-rule (1) provides that pursuant to survey, enquiry, inspection, search or any other proceedings under the Act, the proper officer finds that a person liable to be registered under the Act has failed to apply for such registration, the officer may register the said person on a temporary basis and issue an order in FORM GST REG-12. Sub-rule (3) provides that every person to whom temporary registration has been granted, shall, within a period of ninety days from the date of the grant of such registration, submit an application for registration in the form and manner provided in Rule 8 or Rule 12. Proviso to sub-rule (3) provides that the person may file an appeal against the grant of temporary registration, in such case, the application for registration shall be submitted within a period of thirty days from the date of the issuance of the order upholding the liability to registration by the Appellate Authority.

  As per clause (i), a person making any inter-State taxable supply is required to have compulsory registration notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 22. The petitioner was not having the registration for inter-state supply from Unjha to Andhra Pradesh and accordingly, the respondent authority was justified in creating temporary registration.

  Considering the gross facts of the case where it is very apparent that the petitioner has indulged in misusing the provisions of the GST Act by issuing the bills for the goods which were loaded from Gujarat to be transported to Andhra Pradesh showing that the goods have been purchased from Jalore – Sanchore at Rajasthan, further investigation is required to be made by the respondent authority along with the Rajasthan GST authority.

  The respondent authority is directed to conduct the thorough inquiry in the matter and find out the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner and take proper action under the provisions of the GST Act in accordance with law - petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1150
  

  Mainatianbility of petition - availability of statutory remedy of Appeal - appealable order u/s 112 of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017 - non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal as required under section 109 of the said Acts - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is desirous of availing the statutory remedy of Appeal under the said provisions. Apparently, acknowledging the absence of constitution of Appellate Tribunal, in exercise of the power conferred under section 172 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Government of India based on the recommendation made by the G.S.T. Council, has issued Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 on 03.12.2019.

  In tune with the said Removal of Difficulties Order dated 03.12.2019, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing vide Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST Dated 18th March, 2020 has come out with the clarification in respect of appeal having regard to non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal where it was held that 'The appellate authority while passing order may mention in the preamble that appeal may be made to the appellate tribunal whenever it is constituted within three months from the President or the State President enters office. Accordingly, it is advised that the appellate authorities may dispose all pending appeals expeditiously without waiting for the constitution of the appellate tribunal.'

  Taking into account the aforesaid Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 dated 03.12.2019 issued by the Government of India and subsequent clarification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST Policy Wing) vide Circular No. 132/2/2020 dated 18th March, 2020, it is deemed proper in the interest of justice to dispose of this writ petition subject to compliance of conditions imposed - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1149
  

  Mainatianbility of petition - availability of statutory remedy of Appeal - appealable order u/s 112 of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017 - non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal as required under section 109 of the said Acts - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is desirous of availing the statutory remedy of Appeal under the said provisions. Apparently, acknowledging the absence of constitution of Appellate Tribunal, in exercise of the power conferred under section 172 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Government of India based on the recommendation made by the G.S.T. Council, has issued Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 on 03.12.2019.

  In tune with the said Removal of Difficulties Order dated 03.12.2019, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing vide Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST Dated 18th March, 2020 has come out with the clarification in respect of appeal having regard to non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal where it was held that 'The appellate authority while passing order may mention in the preamble that appeal may be made to the appellate tribunal whenever it is constituted within three months from the President or the State President enters office. Accordingly, it is advised that the appellate authorities may dispose all pending appeals expeditiously without waiting for the constitution of the appellate tribunal.'

  Taking into account the aforesaid Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 dated 03.12.2019 issued by the Government of India and subsequent clarification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST Policy Wing) vide Circular No. 132/2/2020 dated 18th March, 2020, it is deemed proper in the interest of justice to dispose of this writ petition subject to compliance of conditions imposed - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1148
  

  Validity of assessment against company dissolved - demand /penalty Notices have been issued after the approval of the Resolution Plan for the revival and restructuring of the petitioner-company by NCLT - HELD THAT:- It is settled proposition of law that once a Resolution Plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31 (1) of IBC, 2016, the claims as provided in the Resolution Plan shall stand frozen and it will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stake holders. On the date of approval of Resolution Plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished, and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the Resolution Plan.

  As to be noted that the principle of clean slate has been time and again reiterated and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court. Thus, upon approval of a Resolution Plan or sale as going concern, is duly approved by the adjudicating authority, all the previous liabilities and claims of any person qua the corporate debtor, cease to exist and extinguish.

  The law is well settled that once a Resolution Plan is approved by the COC, it shall be binding on all the stakeholders. Thus, the successful Resolution Applicant starts running the business of the Corporate Debtor on a fresh slate. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned Assessment Order as well as the Notice cannot stand in the eyes of the law.

  ---

• 2024 (6) TMI 1147
  

  Validity of reopening of assessment - notices issued for reassessment required compliance with the substituted provisions of the Finance Act, 2021 - as argued in furtherance of Finance Act, 2021, reassessment process stood modified but the respondents have not taken care of it and therefore notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

  HELD THAT:- During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are finally drawn by this Court in a batch of writ petitions decided by common order [2023 (9) TMI 951 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] as held that the procedure to be followed by the respondent-Department upon treating the notices issued for reassessment being under Section 148A, the subsequent proceedings was mandatorily required to be undertaken under the substituted provisions as laid down under the Finance Act, 2021. In the absence of which, we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the respondent- Department is in contravention to the statute i.e. the Finance Act, 2021, at the first instance. Secondly, it is also in direct contravention to the directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal [2022 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT]

  For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically.

  In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned Show Cause notices and consequential orders passed in this batch of writ petitions are set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to take respective stand and to proceed in accordance with law.

  ---

1 ....121314151617181920........ 74