|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1357 Records
-
2025 (5) TMI 1357
Validity of consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) u/s 74 or Consolidated Adjudicating Order for different financial year - Petitioner contended that the notice under Section 74 of the Act can, at some stage, even get converted as a notice under Section 73 of the Act and therefore, the consolidation of either the Show Cause or Final order could not be permissible.
HELD THAT:- Matter listed for 29th April, 2025 in the Supplementary list.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1356
Failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of communication of details of tax, interest and penalty in terms of subrule (1A) of Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017 before service of notice - illegal assumption of jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 122(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017 -retrospective operation - determination of tax liability pertaining to the tax periods from July, 2017 to March, 2019 fell in error of law - invoking provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - sustainability of the Order-in-Original - HELD THAT:- Since Mr. Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel appears and waives issue of notice on behalf of Opposite Parties, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is requested to serve adequate number of copies of the writ petition on him within three working days to enable him to obtain instructions.
Since the learned Junior Standing Counsel has requested for obtaining instruction with respect to imposition of penalty in the context of amendment in sub-section (1A) of Section 122 of the CGST Act and consequences of non-communication of GST DRC-01A under Rule142(1A), as an interim measure, it is directed that the Petitioner shall deposit 20% of the amount of tax as determined in Order-in- Original dated 31.01.2025 under Annexure-3 within a period of two weeks hence and furnish evidence thereof before the authority concerned. If such deposit is made within said period stipulated, the Opposite Parties shall be restrained from taking coercive measure to enforce the demand raised in the impugned Order-in-Original (Annexure-3) till the next date.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1355
Extension of time limit of issuance of SCN u/s 73 / 74 - Validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax -procedural requirements under Section 168A for prior to the issuance of notifications - No opportunity to file a reply to the SCN - Challenging the SCN and impugned order - HELD THAT:- In view of the peculiar circumstances and bearing in mind the period that has lapsed between the assessment years and the issuance of the SCN, the impugned order is set aside.
Considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July 2025, to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner.
The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly.
The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1354
Limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 - No opportunity to file a reply of SCN or participate in the proceedings - Cancellation of the GST registration retrospectively violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Following the decision of this Court on similar facts, in the Ms Blackmelonadvance Technology Company Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner Of State Goods And Services Tax Delhi & Anr. [2025 (4) TMI 1511 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Accordingly, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner’s appeal is directed to be heard on merits, subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as costs with the Department of Trade & Taxes, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
The proof of costs shall be placed before the Appellate Authority and the appeal shall be restored to its original number. The appeal shall be heard by the Appellate Authority on merits in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1353
Cancellation of the GST registration retrospectively - principal place of business not found/available at the field visit - No opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN - principles of natural justice - Validity of SCN and impugned order - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July 2025, to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner.
The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and a fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly.
The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1352
Disallowance of input tax credit (ITC) - bogus input tax credit - non-existent supplier - Availment of the alternative remedy - seeking withdrawal of the writ petition - HELD THAT:- Faced with such situation, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority as available under the CGST/OGST Act.
Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1351
Rejection of an appeal on grounds of a 37-day delay - Show Cause Notice alleging discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 - delay resulted from efforts to remit tax through the Block Development Officer (BDO) - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact the delay of 37 days has been satisfactorily explained, this Court is of the view that the order of the 1st respondent warrants interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated of the first respondent dated 15.04.2025 is set aside and a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to entertain the petitioner's appeal without reference to the delay and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
The Writ Petition is disposed of to the extent indicated above.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1350
Application for amending the particulars in the GST registration - seeking to change the address of the principal place of business mentioned - Input Tax Credit has been blocked - HELD THAT:- The Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner should be afforded another opportunity to provide the details as requested. The Petitioner shall accordingly submit the documents through the portal within one month and seek a hearing. Personal hearing shall be given in this matter and the application for change in the address of the principal place of business shall be considered and an order shall be passed within a period of three months.
If any Input Tax Credit of the Petitioner has been blocked, the same shall be unblocked as well. It is clarified that this order would not affect any other proceedings, if any, pending against the Petitioner or in respect of the said GSTN number.
The present writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1349
Challenge to SCN and consequent demand order - challenge to N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 - extension of time limits for adjudication - HELD THAT:- This Court in Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others [2025 (3) TMI 1308 - DELHI HIGH COURT] under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter.
There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made to the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible. However, in the present case, the writ petition was filed in the year 2024, raising issues as to the validity of the impugned notification. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1348
Challenge to SCN and consequent demand order - challenge to N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limits for adjudication - HELD THAT:- This Court in Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others [2025 (3) TMI 1308 - DELHI HIGH COURT] under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter.
There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made to the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible. However, in the present case, the writ petition was filed in the year 2024, raising issues as to the validity of the impugned notification. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1347
Challenge to SCN and consequent demand order - challenge to N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limits for adjudication - HELD THAT:- This Court in Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others [2025 (3) TMI 1308 - DELHI HIGH COURT] under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter.
The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In response to show cause notices dated 04th December, 2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall file its replies within thirty days. The hearing notices shall now not be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also be emailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing notice being received, the Petitioner would appear before the Department and make its submissions. The show cause notices shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.
There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made to the portal and the Additional Notices Tab has been made visible. However, in the present case, the writ petition was filed in 2024 raising issues as to the validity of the impugned Notifications. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July 2025, to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing.
The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1346
Refund claim in FORM GST RFD-06 - Entitlement to interest on the Balance Refund - petitioner has not furnished material information - participation in the purchase and distribution of LPG empty cylinders and LPG gas - HELD THAT:- We have noticed from the pleadings of the petitioner before the concerned authority that LPG Empty Cylinder has not sold to consumer, on the other hand, he must have sold only gas, that means prima facie section 54 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 would attract.
Be that as it may, having regard to the disputed issues the petitioner is relegated to the appellate authority in the event of filing memorandum of appeal before the appellate authority within a period of eight weeks from today. The concerned appellate authority is hereby directed to take note of and decide the memorandum of appeal to be filed on behalf of the appellant within a reasonable period of four months from the date of receipt of such appeal.
With the above observation, the present CWJC No. 14403 of 2024 stands disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1345
Demand for tax including the tax, interest and penalty - attachment of the bank accounts for recovery of the alleged tax dues - inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit a reply to the show-cause notice and pre-intimation - Show Cause Notices and pre-intimation notices communicated electronically by uploading the same on GST portal as well as e-mail - issued under Rule 142(1A) and Section 74 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 - Challenged the impugned order passed under Section 74(9) - HELD THAT:- Though several contentions have been urged by both sides as regards to the petitioner not having received the pre-intimation notice and show-cause notice and his inability and omission to contest the proceedings, is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show-cause notice or pre-intimation notice nor contested the proceedings, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order.
Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit replies and contest the proceedings was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 and remitting the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law to the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show-cause notice.
In the result, I pass the following:
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the first respondent under Section 74 (9) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure-K is hereby set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on 28.04.2025 without awaiting further notice from the first respondent.
(iv) The liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered by the first respondent who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law.
(v) It is further made clear that in the event petitioners do not appear on 28.04.2025, the present order shall stand automatically recalled/cancelled and the present petition shall stand revived/ restored without further orders and without reference to the Bench.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1344
Challenged the impugned ex-parte orders passed without hearing and SCN - Difference/discrepancy between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A - failure to respond to the show cause notices - non-consideration of the Circular issued by the Central Government, Government of India, bearing No. 183/15/2022-GST - bona fide reasons and sufficient cause justifying reconsideration of the matter - HELD THAT:- In view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit the reply to the show cause notice and participate in the proceedings was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.
In the result, I pass the following:
The Writ Petition is allowed;
The impugned orders passed by respondent at Annexures-E1 dated 31.05.2023, E2 dated 06.01.2024, F1 dated 31.05.2023, F2 dated 06.01.2024, H1 dated 06.06.2024 and H2 dated 06.06.2024, are hereby set aside;
The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, bearing in mind the aforesaid Circular bearing No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022;
Upon the petitioner submitting a reply along with relevant documents to the show cause notice, on 28.04.2025, the respondent shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear him and proceed further in accordance with law.
It is further made clear that in the event petitioners do not appear on 28.04.2025, the present order shall stand automatically recalled/cancelled and the present petition shall stand revived/ restored without further orders and without reference to the Bench.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1343
Entitlement for refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) qua Cess - zero-rated supplies - goods manufactured for export - Validity of Circular No.125/44/2019-GST-as well as para-5 of the Circular No.45/19/2018-GST issued under Section 168 - challenged the show cause notice and the order of sanction of refund - HELD THAT:- While applying the provisions of the Section 54(3) of the GST Act read with Section 16(3) of the IGST Act and Section 11(2) of the Cess Act, admittedly the compensation cess was not paid at the time of export of goods by the petitioner, the petitioner, therefore, is entitled to refund of input tax credit of the compensation cess paid on purchase of the coal utilized for the purpose of manufacture of the goods which are exported as zero rated supply on payment of IGST by the petitioner. Therefore, reliance placed by the respondent on para-42 of the Circular No.125/44/2019 dated 18/11/2019 is misplaced because the said circular was issued clarifying the eligibility to claim refund of unutilized input tax credit of compensation cess paid on input, where the zero rated final product is not leviable with compensation cess.
However, the circular refers to the provision of Section 16(2) of the IGST Act that the registered person making zero rated supply of aluminum products under bond or LUT may claim refund of unutilized credit including that of compensation cess paid on coal. The circular further clarifies that when the registered person make a zero rated supply of product on payment of integrated tax, they cannot utilize the credit of the compensation cess paid on coal for payment of Integrated tax in view of the proviso to Section 11(2) of the Cess Act, as the said proviso allows the utilization of the input tax credit of cess, only for the payment of cess on the outward supplies. However, when the petitioner has paid the IGST under Section 16(3) of the IGST Act on the zero rated supply and refund is claimed by the payment of such IGST, the petitioner admittedly would not be able to utilize input tax credit of cess as cess is not payable on the zero rated supply. Therefore, proviso to Section 11(2) of the Act would not be applicable in the facts of the case and the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the unutilized input tax credit on cess paid on purchase of coal utilized for the purpose of manufacture of goods which are exported.
Thus, the petitions succeed and accordingly the same are allowed. The respondents are directed to process the refund applications of the petitioners to sanction the refund of the Cess amount claimed by the petitioners as unutilized Input Tax credit.
So far as the Special Civil Application No.19279 of 2023 is concerned, order dated 28/07/2023 passed by the Officer of the Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby quashed and set aide and order sanctioning the refund is restored.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1342
Provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account - Section 83 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - Fresh attachment since the initial (previous) attachment order was quashed - failure to render cooperation in the disposal of those show cause proceedings - HELD THAT:- Section 83 of the CGST Act mandates that provisional attachment may be exercised in situations where the Commissioner is of the opinion that “for the purpose of protecting the interest of Government revenue” such an action “is necessary so to do”. The Supreme Court in Radha Krishnan also recognised the triumvirate conditions embodied in the provision, which is that the attachment of property is intended to be provisional, i.e., “in aid of something else”, the purpose of such attachment must be to protect the interests of the Revenue and that the conditions as laid down within the provision must be met in order for such attachment to be deemed as a valid exercise of power.
The respondents, in clear contravention of the requirements laid down in Radha Krishnan [2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT] have been unable to demonstrate any reasonable apprehension that the writ petitioner herein was at risk of defaulting on payment of any demands that may come to be imposed. On the contrary, the only reasons adduced by the respondents for the initiation of Section 83 proceedings was that the writ petitioner had failed to file any response to the DRC-01 or the SCN, did not attend the hearing of the adjudicating authority and allegedly refused to cooperate with the respondents during the adjudication of show cause proceedings - such reasoning abjectly fails to meet the thresholds as engrafted within the provision, of the respondents being required to form an opinion that it is necessary to provisionally attach the property so as to protect the interest of government revenue.
As observed by the Supreme Court in Radha Krishnan, the draconian nature of the provision and the grave consequences that are suffered by a person whose property is provisionally attached necessitates that the criterion for valid initiation of Section 83 actions are met. This requires the production of cogent and credible material basis which the respondents could have reasonably come to form an opinion that a provisional attachment is necessary and essential for the purposes of securing the interests of government revenue. It surely cannot be justified on the basis of vague apprehensions or a failure to cooperate or provide responses to notices.
Conclusion - The respondents' exercise of power under Section 83 was without the requisite formation of opinion based on tangible material, was arbitrary, and violated statutory and constitutional principles. The attachment was therefore quashed, and directions were issued for the immediate de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account.
The impugned order of provisional attachment dated 26 December 2024 set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1341
Denial of cross-examination process of witness - Importance of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements have been utilized by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order - ACIT restricted cross examination process by denying the questions asked by the Petitioner during cross examination - As decided by HC [2023 (6) TMI 94 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] as gone through the directions in the remand order wherein he has allowed the appellant, cross examination of the witnesses whose statements have been utilized by the AO in the assessment order. There is no ambiguity in the said directions.
We hereby direct the petitioner to file petition for recall of the witnesses who have been cross-examined and discharged, to put them the question which have been initially discarded by the AO.
HELD THAT:- We are clearly of the opinion that the impugned judgment/order of HC is unsustainable and should not have been passed.
The High Court ought not to have interjected and interfered in the manner in which the statements of witnesses were being recorded by the Assessing Officer to submit a remand report.
It is the discretion of the appellate authority, that is CIT (A) before whom the appellate proceedings or the assessing officer before whom the remand proceedings are pending to decide the questions to be put the witnesses. Of-course the assessee is entitled to put cross questions on the statement made and other relevant aspects.
We are informed and it is recorded in the order [2024 (7) TMI 1637 - SC ORDER] that the cross-examination of witnesses on behalf of the respondent was completed, and the remand report has been submitted by the Assessing Officer to the appellate authority. It is stated that the objections filed by the respondent, Madhu Korah, are pending before the appellate authority.
The objections filed by the respondent, Madhu Korah, will be dealt with by the CIT(A).
We hereby record that the appellate authority, that is, the CIT(A) will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations and directions in the impugned judgment/order of HC.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1340
Unexplained money u/s 69A - deposit made after the demonetization notification on 8th November 2016 - HC [2024 (12) TMI 1346 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] held explanation offered by assessee was no explanation at all. Nature or source of acquisition of the money not explained could only invite opinion of the AO of unexplained money.
HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1339
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - mandatory requirement of recording reasons - HELD THAT:- In Pankaj Garg vs. Meenu Garg & Anr. [2013 (2) TMI 924 - SUPREME COURT] reiterated the settled position of law holding that an order, which does not contained any reason, is no order in the eyes of law.
Since the order passed by the AO is bereft of any cogent or plausible reasons, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the AO to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. If the AO still comes to the conclusion that notice u/s 148 is necessary, then he shall record detailed reasons for arriving at such conclusion. AO is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31.08.2025.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1338
Validity of assessment orders - Period of limitation u/s 153B - ‘Exchange of Information - Indo-Switzerland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [Indo-Swiss DTAA] - whether the period of one year is required to be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for passing the assessment order?
HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that if the said period is excluded from the time available u/s 153B for making the assessment / reassessment order on account of the Revenue making a reference in terms of the Agreement u/s 90 assessment orders were passed within the period of limitation. AO had passed the assessment order on 04.03.2015 and the time period of passing the assessment order was available till 31.03.2015.
Decision of Supreme Court In Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. CIT & Anr. (2016) 12 SCC 32 considered. [2008 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] - It is apparent from the above, that but for the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court to treat this decision as settling the law prospectively – the effect of which was to save the orders issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act that were issued prior to the court handing down its ruling – the assessments made would have to be set aside as fresh assessments would be barred by limitation. It is in the aforesaid view that the learned ASG had made a request for prospective ruling, which was acceded to by the Supreme Court. It is implicit that if the directions issued under Section 142 (2A) of the Act were held to be invalid, the benefit of exclusion of the period under Clause (ii) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Act would not be available.
On a plain reading of Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Act, the exclusion of time taken for obtaining the information (or one year) for completion of the assessment under Section 153A of the Act is applicable only if a reference for exchange of information has to be made as per the Agreement under Section 90/90A of the Act. It is necessary that reference be made in terms of the agreement. In this case, the benefit of exclusion of time by virtue of Explanation (ix) of Section 153B of the Act would, thus, be available only if the reference was made in terms of Indo-Swiss DTAA. However, as noted above, the request as made was not in terms of the Indo-Swiss DTAA. It was contrary to the limitations as expressly specified under Article 14 of the Amending Protocol.
Questions to law as framed are answered against the Revenue and in the negative; that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the Assesses.
........
|
9911796707
