|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 11525 Records
-
2024 (5) TMI 878 - SC ORDER
Interest on the delayed disbursal of amount of Budgetary Support already sanctioned - Budgetary Support Scheme - it was held by CESTAT that 'The petitioner are no entitled to interest on the amount disabused to it under the Scheme' - HELD THAT:- It is not required to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petitions are hence dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 877 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Order u/s 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - the order of the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority is based on a report filed by the Irrigation and Waterways Directorate, Govt. of West Bengal - non-compliance with the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- When the report of the Irrigation and Waterways Directorate formed the foundation of the adjudication, it was incumbent upon the Revenue to supply a copy thereof to the writ petitioner so that he could effectively address the substance of the report.
In view of that non-compliance with the principles of natural justice in this matter, the order dated April 13, 2023 passed by respondent no. 2 is set aside.
The respondent no. 2 is directed to rehear the appeal after supplying the petitioner, a copy of the said report dated January 3, 2020 upon the writ petitioner. The appellate authority shall conclude the entire exercise within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.
-
2024 (5) TMI 876 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
Maintainability of advance ruling application - Scope of Advance Ruling - HELD THAT:- In terms of clause (a) of section 95 of the GST Act, an advance ruling means a decision provided by this authority or the appellate authority, as the case may be, on matters or any questions specified in sub section (2) of section 97 or sub section (1) of section 100 of the GST Act in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. An application for obtaining an advance ruling is to be made on the common portal in FORM GST ARA-01.
However, in the instant case, no question is found to have been raised by the applicant against the specified column of the application in FORM GST ARA-01. The applicant has enclosed an annexure with the application. The applicant, even in the said document so annexed, has not stated any questions on which the advance ruling is sought. The said document is found to be a statement on “Auditors‟ comments on Emphasis of Matter in Independent Auditors‟ Report for Financial Year 2021-2022 and Management Reply against the comment thereto.”
There cannot be any reason to admit the application. The application, therefore, is rejected.
-
2024 (5) TMI 875 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order and bank attachment notice - no personal hearing provided - petitioner asserts that the intimation notice and show cause notice did not contain particulars as to how the liability was arrived at - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The documents on record disclose that the petitioner was not heard before the order was issued. It also appears that only the summary of the assessment order was uploaded on the GST portal. In those circumstances, the impugned orders call for interference subject to putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned assessment order and the consequential attachment notice are quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to fulfilment of the said condition, the assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of 10% of the disputed tax demand.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (5) TMI 872 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of the petitioners' proprietorship concern - Time limitation - unreasoned order - total non application of mind by the authority concerned while cancelling the G.S.T registration of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The appeal filed against the order has been dismissed on the ground of limitation only.
Bar of limitation may bar the remedy of appeal but it does not bar the petitioner's right to seek his constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the impugned order affects valuable rights of the petitioner and the same has been passed without assigning any reason.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (5) TMI 869 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Time Limitation - Rejection of appeal filed by the petitioner - appeal was filed with a delay beyond the condonable period - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the copy of the screen shot filed along with the material papers, there are some force in the submission of learned counsel. Since admittedly the copy of the assessment order dated 20.07.2022 was already placed on the department website, the petitioner gave the reference of the said order while filing the appeal electronically. Therefore, there are force in the submission that the requirement was substantially met. Therefore, the 1st respondent ought to have taken the date of filing of the appeal as 26.09.2022 for all practical purposes. However, the 1st respondent took the date of filing as 24.04.2023, as on the date the appeal was filed along with the documents physically.
This approach of the 1st respondent cannot be accepted. Electronical filing of the appeal is a facilitation given to the assessees. That being so, the copy of the impugned order which was already available on the web can be mentioned for easy reference.
The appeal filed by the petitioner in electronic mode is held as well within time and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to register the appeal and decide the same in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 867 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - Time Limitation - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts are similar to one in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case [2023 (8) TMI 1262 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case took into consideration the original order and set aside the same being non-reasoned and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice.
The orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 866 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - non-application of mind - time limitation - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts are similar to one in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case [2023 (8) TMI 1262 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case took into consideration the original order and set aside the same being non-reasoned and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice.
The orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order in original dated March 2, 2022 and the appellate order dated April 1, 2024 are quashed and set aside - The writ petition is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 865 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - order for cancellation of registration has been passed without any application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts are similar to one in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case [2023 (8) TMI 1262 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case took into consideration the original order and set aside the same being non-reasoned and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice.
The orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order in original dated February 22, 2023 and the appellate order dated April 4, 2024 are quashed and set aside - the writ petition is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 827 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - the impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand including penalty - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 25.10.2023 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply with supporting documents. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents, unable to clarify the issue which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Show Cause Notice is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 826 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order notes that as neither any reply was received from the noticee nor any one attended the hearing - HELD THAT:- As conceded by the respondent that a reply was filed but the same was not taken into account by the Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The show cause notice is restored on the record of the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority shall decide the show cause notice in accordance with law after giving one opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
It is clarified that in case petitioner once again fails to appear pursuant to the hearing being granted, the Adjudicating Authority would be at liberty to proceed further with the adjudication of the show cause notice ex-parte. However, after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner.
The petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 825 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - power of Joint Commissioner (Investigation) Enforcement Wing, Rajasthan–I, Jaipur to exercise powers and functions of adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Act of 2017 - whether notification dated 25.02.2020 confers blanket powers on the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner in the matter of exercise of powers under Section 73 of the Act of 2017? - HELD THAT:- It is found that for the purposes of exercising powers of adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Act of 2017, proper officer would be one who has been assigned that function as adjudicating authority. While notification dated 25.02.2020 provides that for the purposes of exercising powers under Section 73 of the Act of 2017, the officers of the rank of Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner would be competent, the notification also clearly says that such power would be exercisable by them within their jurisdiction.
All other notifications which have been filed by the respondents do not show that in relation to exercise of powers of adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Act of 2017, the jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner Enforcement Wing, Rajasthan–I, Jaipur has been extended beyond his jurisdiction including Udaipur jurisdiction.
List the matter on 12.07.2024.
-
2024 (5) TMI 822 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory alternative remedy of appeal - Levy of penalty u/s 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In face of statutory alternative remedy of appeal available and it being equally open to the petitioner to raise all grounds pressed in the present petition before the appeal authority, we are not inclined to offer any interference in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Since the petition has remained pending before this Court for sometime, it is disposed of with a direction subject to the petitioner availing statutory alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order within a period of three days and filing stay application, the same may be dealt with and decided, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of ten days therefrom.
-
2024 (5) TMI 820 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of the petitioner under the WBGST Act, 2017 - failure on the part of the petitioner to file its returns for six months - HELD THAT:- From the proceedings initiated by the respondents it would transpire that the show cause notice was issued on the petitioner for cancellation of the petitioner’s registration on account of failure on the part of the petitioner to file its returns. Incidentally, the said show cause notice was issued at a point of time when the country was under lock down. Although, the cancellation order of the petitioner’s registration dated 17th March 2021 records that the petitioner had submitted a response on 15th May 2020, it is found from the pleadings filed by the petitioner that the petitioner was denied such opportunity to file its response.
Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that suspension/revocation of license would be counter productive and works against the interest of the revenue since, the petitioner in such a case would not able to carry on its business in the sense that no invoice can be raised by the petitioner and ultimately would impact recovery of tax, the respondents should take a pragmatic view in the matter and permit the petitioner to carry on its business.
Application disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 813 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of GST on Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) supplied by the petitioner - Validity of show cause notice - HELD THAT:- The respondents placed reliance on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court Union of India in UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VERSUS COASTAL CONTAINER TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION & OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 1497 - SUPREME COURT] where the Apex Court held 'We find force in the contention of the learned senior counsel, Sri Radhakrishnan, appearing for the appellants that the High Court has committed error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India at the stage of show cause notices. Though there is no bar as such for entertaining the writ petitions at the stage of show cause notice, but it is settled by number of decisions of this Court, where writ petitions can be entertained at the show cause notice stage. Neither it is a case of lack of jurisdiction nor any violation of principles of natural justice is alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice.'
Therefore, it is clear that the Apex Court frowned upon the practice of approaching this court on issuance of show-cause notice, without giving written explanation to enable the authority to consider his defence and to pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the petitioner has rushed to this court to challenge the show-cause notice without availing the opportunity given to him to submit his written explanation. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 773 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the appellate authority - Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Power and Jurisdiction of appellate authority to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period - appeal filed beyond one month from the prescribed period of limitation, as provided in Section 107 (4) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It may be noticed that an identical issue had fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty & Sons [2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. The Division Bench of this Court, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 107 of the said Act and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act 1963 and by placing reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (PW) Slapper and another versus Excise and Taxation Officer Sunder Nagar/Assessing Authority [2019 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT], had concluded that in absence of non obstante clause rendering Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act 1963, non applicable and in absence of specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it would be improper to read implied exclusion thereof.
The appellate authority had failed to exercise jurisdiction in refusing to entertain the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, since the same was filed beyond one month, beyond the prescribed period of Limitation as provided for in Section 107 (4) of the said Act.
Having considered the application for condonation of delay, and the explanation offered by the petitioner, it is found that the explanation provided by the petitioner is satisfactory and delay has been sufficiently explained. Having regard thereto the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 107 of the said Act is condoned and appeal is restored to its original file and number.
The writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
2024 (5) TMI 763 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty order - discrepancy in Part-B of the e-way bill - only mistake on the part of the person in-charge who had downloaded the e-way bill was wrong entry of the Vehicle number - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that goods were being transported by the dealer through stock transfer from its unit at Ludhiana to its sale depot at Asansol, West Bengal. From perusal of the e-way bill which has been brought on record, it is clear that the vehicle number has been mentioned as PB 11 AN 9287.
As there is no dispute to the fact that it is a case of stock transfer and there is no intention on the part of dealer to evade any tax, the minor discrepancy as to the registration of vehicle in State in the e-way bill would not attract proceedings for penalty under Section 129 and the order passed by the detaining authority as well as first appellate authority cannot be sustained. Moreover, the Department has not placed before the Court any other material so as to bring on record that there was any intention on the part of the dealer to evade tax except the wrong mention of part of registration number of the vehicle in the e-way bill. There is a minor discrepancy in Part-B of the e-way bill where the description of the vehicle is entered by the dealer.
The orders dated March 19, 2019 and March 16, 2020 are unsustainable in the eyes of law - petition allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 761 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Service of SCN - plea of not having accessed the Portal for long period - valid reason or not - inadvertent errors committed while filing monthly GSTR-3B returns during 2017- 18 - ITC available on tax paid on inward supplies were mistakenly reported under the column ITC available on “Inward supplies liable to reverse charge” - HELD THAT:- On a close perusal of the impugned proceedings, it appears that the intimation notice, show cause notice and reminder notice were issued as mentioned supra before issuance of the impugned proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the above said notices and the orders were uploaded in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab in the GST Portal. It is also pertinent to note that these notices and orders hitherto were being uploaded on the “View Notice” tab.
In the fact and circumstances, based on the reasons given by the petitioner herein, in order to afford an opportunity to the petitioner herein to putforth his points, the impugned order is to be interfered. The impugned order stands quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand for the assessment year 2017-2018 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such terms, the Assessing Officer to consider his Appeal after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. On compliance of the condition, the Assessing Officer to issue assessment order afresh within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 758 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Unblocking the electronic credit ledger - blocked ITC - non-filing of returns over a period of one year - return defaulter under Section 46.
The petitioner submits that the petitioner has been regular in filing returns and payment of tax. He submits that his client would be advised to make payment of outstanding dues, if any, resulting out of an adjudication proceeding.
HELD THAT:- Having regard to the developments that have been taken note of here-in-above, the grievance of the petitioner seems to have been redressed - the petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 757 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery of short paid duty alongwith interest and penalty - no sufficient reply filed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The reply filed by the petitioner, which is an undated, does not deal with the allegations in the notices that were issued to the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner should have filed necessary evidence and produced samples to establish that there is no manufacturing activity carried out by the petitioner and therefore, the stand of the third respondent was incorrect.
Considering the fact that the issue has to be decided one way or the other on the correct classification adopted by the petitioner and the respondents, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax with the third respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall file detailed reply to the impugned order enclosing the technical literature and produce the samples before the third respondent The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as corrigendum to the notices issued to the petitioner prior to the impugned order.
Petition allowed.
........
|
