|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1556 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 1517
Refund of the amount paid as tax under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, following the insertion of Section 128A into the Act - HELD THAT:- The Department have duly taken into consideration the queries so raised by this Court in its order dated 17.12.2024 and, more particularly, at paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 which have been already quoted herein above. It has been further mentioned in the said affidavit that the Respondent Department would be adjusting the amount paid by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.33,69,271/- by using the credit in the PLA account towards the returns filed on 31.10.2017 under the CGST Act, 2017. It is further mentioned that the amounts so deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 21.12.2023 would be refunded to the petitioner.
The instant writ petition therefore stands closed, thereby granting liberty to the petitioner to file application for refund of the amount of Rs.33,69,271/- which was deposited by the p
-
2025 (1) TMI 1516
Input tax credit - amendment of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, particularly by insertion of sub-section (5) in Section 16 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner submitted its invoice/debit note pertaining to the financial year 2018-2019 and, that too, prior to 30.11.2021 and, therefore, the case of the petitioner very well comes under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 16.
The respondent authorities are directed to consider the matter and pass an appropriate order taking into consideration the provision of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, vide Amendment (Finance Act, 2024) dated 16.08.2024.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1515
Challenge to confiscation notice issued by the respondent dated 02.08.2024 under Section 130 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- After considering all the reasons and material evidences, the Officials have come to the conclusion that the goods were transported only with the intention of evading the payment of tax under the pretext that the gold jewelleries were carried to showcase the same to its customers, by misusing the provisions of Rules 138 and Rule 55 of the CGST Rules. In the impugned notice also, the Officials have clearly stated all the aforesaid aspects - Under these circumstances, it is a bounded duty of the petitioner to file an appropriate reply and satisfy the respondent on the aspects of the various opinion formed against the petitioner as indicated in the impugned confiscation notice.
As far as the over-riding effect of Section 129 of TNGST Act over Section 130 of the of TNGST Act due to the non-obstante clause is concerned, it would be applicable with regard to the detention and seizure of goods and not for the confiscation, i.e., the non-obstante clause available in Section 129 would be applicable only for the seizure. In other words, if there is any provision contained in the Act with regard to the seizure in any other manner, Section 129 will supersede over the same. Therefore, as far as confiscation is concerned, the said non- obstante clause available in Section 129 will not supersede the provisions of Section 130, since Section 129 only talks about the seizure of the goods and not about confiscation. Thus, both these Sections are independent in nature.
In the judgment of Synergy Fertichem [2019 (12) TMI 1213 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], it has been held that any opinion of the authority to be formed is not subject to objective test. The purpose of invoking Section 130 of the Act at the very threshold, the authorities need to make out a very strong case. Merely on suspicion, the authorities may not be justified in invoking Section 130 of the Act straightway. In this case, the officials had formed clear cut prima facie opinion to make out a very strong case in their favour for issuing notice under Section 130 of the TNGST Act.
Conclusion - The authorities had sufficient prima facie evidence to issue the confiscation notice and that the petitioner failed to provide adequate documentation to refute the allegations. The Court clarifies that Section 129 and Section 130 of the TNGST Act operate independently, with Section 129 dealing with seizure and Section 130 with confiscation.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1514
Recovery of outstanding dues in cases wherein first appeal has been disposed of, till Appellate Tribunal comes into operation - reliability of Circular No.224/18/2024-GST dated 11th July, 2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance - HELD THAT:- The petition should be heard.
Since, the petitioners have been able to make out a prima facie case, there shall be an unconditional stay of the demand of the Appellate order dated 18th June, 2024, for a period of two weeks from date - In the event, the petitioners makes payment of 10% of the balance amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount already deposited in terms of Section 107(6) of the said Act, within two weeks from date, the interim order passed herein, shall continue till the disposal of the writ petition or until further order, whichever is earlier.
Let affidavit-in-opposition to the present writ petition be filed within a period of six weeks from date, reply, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1513
Challenge to order passed un/s 73 of Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 clubbing the financial years from 2019-20 to 2023-24 - whether the impugned order requires interference at the hands of this Court? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, Annexure-C order passed under Section 73 of 2017 Act is in respect of the financial years 2019-20 to 2023-24. By clubbing more than one financial year, the petitioner was issued with show-cause notice and the order is passed under Section 73 of 2017 Act which is impermissible. In terms of Section 73 of KGST Act, specific action must be completed within the relevant year since the limitation is prescribed. Hence, clubbing multiple assessment years is impermissible.
This Court, in an identical fact situation in M/S. VEREMAX TECHNOLOGIE SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BENGALURU. [2024 (9) TMI 1347 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned show-cause notice, with liberty to the Authorities to issue separate show-cause notices for each assessment year in compliance of Section 73 of KGST Act and proceed further in the matter.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1512
Grant of privilege of anticipatory bail - facilitation for registration of a proprietary firm on the basis of fake and vague documents for evading huge tax of government - offence u/s 132(1)(b)/13(1)(e)/132 (1) (1) of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST) Act - HELD THAT:- It is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs. 50,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Telco P.S. Case No.104 of 2018 (G.R. No. 2027 of 2018) with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1511
Suspension of the petitioner's GST registration - parallel enquiry by the State and Central GST authorities - violation of Rule 21 (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The challenge to the SCN proceeds in light of the investigation which has been initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence [DGGI] in terms of a SCN dated 01 July 2024 and which stands placed on our record as Annexure P-6. Admittedly, the said SCN proceedings are yet to be concluded.
From the counter affidavit which has been handed over by the State GST authorities in these proceedings, it is evident that the pendency of proceedings before the DGGI is conceded. In view of the aforesaid, we find ourselves unable to sustain the validity of the impugned SCN dated 25 April 2024.
The impugned SCN dated 25 April 2024 is quashed - petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1510
Liability to pay tax on royalty - intimation of tax issued u/s 73(5) of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The writ petition of the petitioner is too premature and the same is liable to be rejected at this stage.
A perusal of Annexure-D, intimation of tax ascertained under Section 73(5) of KGST Act, 2017 would reveal that it is only an intimation of ascertained tax with liberty to the petitioner to pay along with interest or to file his submission. Failing to pay the ascertained tax, petitioner would be issued further notice under Section 73(1) and thereafter the Competent Authority shall have to pass order under Section 73(9) of KGST Act. Further, intimation of tax ascertained at Annexure-D also provides an opportunity to file any submission of the petitioner against the said intimation itself.
Since no show cause notice under Section 73(1) of KGST Act is issued and no order in terms of Section 73(9) of KGST Act is passed, the present writ petition would be premature. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1509
Dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner - mandatory pre-deposit was not paid - HELD THAT:- It is curious to note that the Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order as a common order in respect of different appellants. A reading of the impugned order does not reveal any identity of cause of action or identity of parties to enable the Appellate Authority to pass a common order as such. As far as the other persons mentioned in Exhibit-P6 order are concerned, some of their appeals have been allowed in part, and since those orders are not under challenge, the merits of the said aspect not gone into. Suffice to state that such a common order relating to different appellants, without any identity in cause of action is not a proper procedure.
Be that as it may, as far as petitioner is concerned, its appeal has been dismissed on the ground of non payment of the mandatory pre-deposit. Since the petitioner has expressed its willingness to pay the pre-deposit immediately, the said technicality should not stand in the way of the petitioner obtaining an adjudication on merits, provided the deposit is made.
Exhibit-P6 order set aside to the extent it dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit, on condition that petitioner shall pay the entire deposit within two weeks from today - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1508
Challenge to section 174(2) of the GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present petition stands finally adjudicated by this Court in Tecnimont Spa India Project Office vs. State of Punjab and another [2024 (12) TMI 1223 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], wherein, it is held that 'Challenge to vires of the said section was laid before the High Court of Kerala in bunch of cases which were decided in favour of the Revenue holding the provisions as within the framework of the Constitution of India, and also the action was held to be within the competence of the department.'
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1507
Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of fair opportunity to respond to a Show Cause Notice - SCN uploaded under the "Additional Notices" tab on the GST portal - HELD THAT:- Clearly, petitioner has made out a case that Petitioner has missed out the receipt of the notice as it was merely uploaded on the portal under the category of “Additional Notices” tab and accordingly could not respond to the Show Cause Notice.
The impugned order dated 14-3-2024 is set aside. Since the only reason for passing the impugned order is that Petitioner had not filed any reply/explanation, Petitioner needs to be granted one opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter, the Show Cause Notice to be re-adjudicated.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1506
Exemption u/s 11 - exemption disallowed on the ground that registration u/s 12AA granted to the assessee stood cancelled - what's the charitable nature of activities carried out by assessee in terms of Section 2(15)? - as decided by HC [2022 (8) TMI 1400 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] for the applicability of proviso to Section 2(15), the activities of the trust should be carried out on commercial lines with intention to make profit. Where the trust is carrying out its activities on noncommercial lines with no motive to earn profits, for fulfillment of its aims and objectives, which are charitable in nature and in the process earn some profits, the same would not be hit by proviso to section 2(15). The aims and objects of the assessee-trust are admittedly charitable in nature.
Learned counsel invites our attention to the order passed in M/s. Ghaziabad Development Authority Vikas Path [2023 (7) TMI 1551 - SC ORDER] wherein In the light of the decision in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022 (10) TMI 948 - SUPREME COURT] and as corrected by the order [2022 (11) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT]the present Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in terms of the said decision. Pending application also stands disposed of.”
As such, as jointly prayed for, the present special leave petitions are disposed of in terms of the order extracted supra.
Exemption u/s 11 - exemption disallowed on the ground that registration u/s 12AA granted to the assessee stood cancelled - what's the charitable nature of activities carried out by assessee in terms of Section 2(15)? - It is not in dispute that the issue in question stands squarely covered and the similar petition preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed in terms of order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court M/s. Ghaziabad Development Authority Vikas Path” [2022 (11) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT] - Ordered accordingly.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1505
Transfer order issued u/s 127 (2) is found to be procedurally flawed, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice - absence of documented concurrence between the jurisdictional Principal Commissioners as mandated u/s 127 - HELD THAT:- The respondent no. 1 failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Despite the Petitioner’s detailed objections to the proposed transfer and a request for the disclosure of incriminating material, no opportunity of being heard was provided and the requested material was not furnished.
Petitioner was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations due to inadequate notice for the hearing scheduled on October 14, 2024, coinciding with the Durga Puja holidays. Despite a valid request for rescheduling, Respondent No. 1 failed to accommodate the petitioner’s concerns, effectively depriving the petitioner of a fair chance to present its case. Such omissions violate the procedural safeguards enshrined u/s 127 (2), rendering the transfer order invalid.
The impugned order also lacked cogent reasoning and failed to address the specific objections raised by the petitioner. The allegations of unaccounted cash payments and irregularities in the transaction were vague and unsupported by any credible evidence. The respondent’s reliance on vague references to "incriminating material" without disclosing the basis or specifics of the evidence rendered the transfer order speculative and unsustainable.
The Respondents’ argument that the transfer was necessitated for coordinated investigation and meaningful assessment holds merit only when supported by valid reasons and material evidence. In the present case, the purported need for coordination is not substantiated by specific or credible evidence linking the Petitioner’s assessment to the alleged concealment of income by the partnership firm.
Thus the impugned transfer order is legally unsustainable.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1504
Reassessment notice against non-existent entity post-merger - HELD THAT:- We cannot condone the fundamental error in issuing the impugned notices against a non-existing company despite full knowledge of the merger. The impugned notices, which are non-est cannot be treated as “good” as urged on behalf of the Respondents.
In Maruti Suzuki [2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT] has held that issuing notice in the name of a non-existing company is a substantive illegality and not a mere procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B of the IT Act. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1503
Adjustment of refund against the outstanding demand in the purported exercise of powers u/s 245 - Violation of principle of natural justice - HELD THAT:- An intimation proposing an adjustment was sent to the petitioner. However, after that, the petitioner was not granted a hearing, and no formal order was made under Section 245 of the IT Act. Instead, by communication dated 16 March 2024, the Petitioner was informed of the adjustment against the outstanding demand for assessment year 2018-2019. In our judgment, the procedure followed by the Respondents grossly violates the principles of natural justice and fair play.
The record shows that the Petitioner addressed communications dated 5 December 2023, 6 December 2023 and 7 December 2023 to the Respondents regarding objections to the proposed adjustments. There was no consideration of these objections. The petitioner was granted no opportunity of a hearing. No formal order was also made dealing with the petitioner’s objections. All this violates the principles of natural justice.
We quash the adjustments made in the purported exercise of powers under Section 245 and direct the Respondents to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,91,45,369/- in this Court within two weeks from today.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1502
Validity of reassessment proceedings - notice u/s 148A (b), 148A (d) and 148 were not served either on email-id or by postal and, therefore, the proceedings are bad in law - HELD THAT:- As Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has changed her address, but same was not informed to the Income-Tax Department and, therefore, the postal authorities may have returned the notices with the remark left. In our view, it was the duty of the Petitioner to inform change about her address to the Income-Tax Department and make necessary changes in the PAN card details. Having not done so, no fault can be attributed to the Respondents on account of non-service of the notices.
Petitioner being an individual lady, and her husband being on transferable job by way of giving an opportunity, order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 and consequent notice u/s 142(1) are quashed.
At the directions of the Court, Petitioner has given postal address and email-id on which the subsequent notices can be served.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1501
PIL - online utility provided by the respondents denied the assessees benefit of claiming a rebate u/s 87A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2024-25 while filing online return against tax computed under various sections of Chapter XII of the Act - seeking direction or order directing the Respondents to allow assesses to file a manual return of income for claiming rebate
Whether respondents are justified in modifying their utility, whereby an assessee is debarred at the threshold from making a rebate claim under Section 87A while uploading his return of income online? - HELD THAT:- As in the course of the hearing, our attention was drawn to the subject matter of Writ Petition in the case of Lupin Ltd. [2024 (3) TMI 1406 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the assessee was prevented from making the claim of deduction based on the Supreme Court decision since electronic mode of filing the return was not permitting the assessee to do so. On a writ petition being filed and on a direction by this Court, a manual return was permitted to be filed for making the said claim. We were informed that while processing the manual return, the claim of the assessee was accepted. We are referring to this decision for the limited purpose to bring our point in support of our analysis that certainly the utility cannot be designed to prevent an assessee from making a claim which subsequently by adjudication and appeal process may be found to be correct.
As in the case of Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (3) TMI 1405 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] also permitted the assessee to file paper return which came to be processed and thereafter an appeal against such processing was filed by the assessee. This decision is also relied upon to the limited extent that the online system did not provide to make a claim which was permitted by paper return and processed accordingly.
Therefore, it is not that an assessee can be debarred from making a claim in the return of income whether online or manual.
If any such claim is made, the revenue would certainly be free to examine the same as per the provisions of the Act. Both the revenue and the assessee have remedies under the Act for testing the validity of such a claim. We, however, refrain from expressing any views on whether the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners or the learned ASG are correct since that would be something which has to be examined by the quasi-judicial authorities under the Act in the first instance and not by a writ court in its exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.
We agree with the learned ASG that unless there is a demand for justice which has been rejected or a failure on the part of the revenue to exercise its duty under the Act, such a writ as prayed for in prayer clause (c) cannot be granted. We also agree with the learned ASG that unless there is some concrete instance, the Court should grant no relief in such broad and general terms. Such reliefs, in general terms, are typically not to be granted because the ramifications would be unclear. For the present, we do not propose to consider relief in terms of the prayer clause (c) of the petition by leaving the question open.
Order:- Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to modify the utilities for filing of the return of income u/s 139 of the Act immediately, thereby allowing assessees to make a claim of rebate u/s 87A of the Act read with the proviso to section 87A, in their return of income for the AY 2024-25 and subsequent years including revised returns to be filed under section 139 (5) of the Act.
The issue of adjudication of eligibility of a claim under Section 87A is left to the authorities under the Act while processing the returns filed by the assessees.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1500
Revision u/s 264 - Necessity of amendment of the RoI before the application u/s 264 - TDS liability u/s 195 - payment made by the petitioner, which was initially disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) due to non-deduction of tax at source - Applicability of Article 12 of the DTAA
HELD THAT:- The scope of the power which the Commissioner could have exercised under Section 264 it was clearly not imperative for the petitioner to have amended its RoI. As was pertinently observed both in Vijay Gupta [2016 (3) TMI 977 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Interglobe Enterprises [2023 (2) TMI 34 - DELHI HIGH COURT] an assessee could be taxed only in respect of such part of its total income as was exigible under the Act.
The judgments noted supra, further hold that an assessee could invoke the power conferred by Section 264 in order to rectify a mistaken stand taken earlier and where it may have offered income to tax even though the law placed no such liability. It was pertinently observed that an assessee is liable to pay tax only on such income which is otherwise chargeable under the Act.
Our Court thus held that merely because certain income or receipt may have been mistakenly offered to tax, the same would not be conclusive if it were found and established that the same was not chargeable at all. The said principles would equally apply to the suo moto disallowance which the petitioner had made under the bona fide and yet mistaken belief that the same was liable to be offered for taxation.
The said stand, in our considered opinion, could not have been negated merely because the RoI had not been amended. The conclusion so reached by the Commissioner in this regard clearly fails to bear in consideration the salutary power that Section 264 creates and confers. The power that the statute vests in the Commissioner could have been validly invoked if the assessee were to assert that it had erred or proceeded on the mistaken assumption that the said item of income or expenditure was liable to be taxed under the Act.
Findings rendered in the context of Section 9 are concerned, as noted hereinabove, the Commissioner has failed to either advert to or examine the aspect on the anvil of the DTAA and the stand of the petitioner that the “make available” condition was not satisfied and the expenditure thus not liable to be viewed as royalty on which tax could have been validly imposed.
Allow the instant writ petition and quash the order. The revision application shall consequently be taken up for consideration afresh, bearing in mind the observations appearing hereinabove.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1499
Validity of Tribunal order in breach of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the facts in the present appeal and those in the connected appeals are identical.
Therefore, for the reasons we have recorded in our order disposing of the three connected appeals, we allow this appeal by passing the following order as order is dated 31 March 2017 [2017 (3) TMI 1959 - ITAT MUMBAI]set aside and the matter is remanded to the tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law and on its own merits.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1498
Monetary limits for filing Income Tax Appeals by the department before the High Court - Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - HELD THAT:- As per submission of appellant where monetary limit (tax liability) in the present case is less than Rs. 2 Crores, therefore, in light of aforesaid circular (Para-5) dated 17/09/2024, the instant Tax Case stands disposed of.
........
|
9911796707
