The petitioners challenged show cause notices proposing levy of GST on secondment of employees from foreign group entities. The factual background indicated that salaries were paid by the Indian entities, and the seconded employees worked under their control. Subsequent clarifications issued by CBIC were also placed on record.The Court held that once the issue of taxability of secondment stood clarified by the Board, continuation of proceedings was unwarranted. The impugned show cause notices were quashed, holding that the proposed levy was unsustainable in law.
Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. 22-10-2024
The petitioners challenged show cause notices proposing levy of GST on secondment of employees from foreign group entities. The factual background indicated that salaries were paid by the Indian entities, and the seconded employees worked under their control. Subsequent clarifications issued by CBIC were also placed on record.The Court held that once the issue of taxability of secondment stood clarified by the Board, continuation of proceedings was unwarranted. The impugned show cause notices were quashed, holding that the proposed levy was unsustainable in law.
The petitioner challenged an order passed under Section 73 imposing tax, interest and penalty, contending that no personal hearing was granted despite statutory mandate. The factual background showed that the petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment granting relief on similar grounds.The Court held that where no reply is filed and no appearance is made before the authority, denial of personal hearing cannot be a ground for interference. The writ petition was dismissed.
Future Consumer Limited vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 22-10-2024
The petitioner challenged an order passed under Section 73 imposing tax, interest and penalty, contending that no personal hearing was granted despite statutory mandate. The factual background showed that the petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment granting relief on similar grounds.The Court held that where no reply is filed and no appearance is made before the authority, denial of personal hearing cannot be a ground for interference. The writ petition was dismissed.
The petitioner challenged a GST adjudication order on grounds identical to those raised in an earlier writ petition already decided by the same Court. The factual background showed that the issues were squarely covered by a previous order.The Court followed its earlier decision, set aside the impugned order, and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. Relief was granted subject to payment of costs.
Pepperfry Limited vs Union of India & Ors 17-10-2024
The petitioner challenged a GST adjudication order on grounds identical to those raised in an earlier writ petition already decided by the same Court. The factual background showed that the issues were squarely covered by a previous order.The Court followed its earlier decision, set aside the impugned order, and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. Relief was granted subject to payment of costs.
The petitioner challenged assessment orders passed under the State GST Act on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. The factual background showed that common issues were involved in a large batch of writ petitions.The Court held that assessments passed without adherence to statutory procedure and without granting proper opportunity are unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside with liberty to the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries vs Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) 17-10-2024
The petitioner challenged assessment orders passed under the State GST Act on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. The factual background showed that common issues were involved in a large batch of writ petitions.The Court held that assessments passed without adherence to statutory procedure and without granting proper opportunity are unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside with liberty to the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
The petitioner sought directions against GST authorities for action against a private party allegedly claiming wrongful ITC. The factual background showed that the grievance was essentially private in nature.The Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to settle private disputes. The proper remedy was to approach the statutory authorities. The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
The petitioner sought directions against GST authorities for action against a private party allegedly claiming wrongful ITC. The factual background showed that the grievance was essentially private in nature.The Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to settle private disputes. The proper remedy was to approach the statutory authorities. The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order confirming tax, interest and penalty on the ground that it was non-speaking and passed without granting effective opportunity of hearing. The factual background showed that though a detailed reply was filed, the impugned order merely reproduced conclusions without any discussion or reasoning.The Court held that an adjudication order must disclose application of mind and contain reasons supporting the conclusions arrived at. Absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable in law. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
Bhansali Industries vs Union of India & Ors 15-10-2024
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order confirming tax, interest and penalty on the ground that it was non-speaking and passed without granting effective opportunity of hearing. The factual background showed that though a detailed reply was filed, the impugned order merely reproduced conclusions without any discussion or reasoning.The Court held that an adjudication order must disclose application of mind and contain reasons supporting the conclusions arrived at. Absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable in law. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The petitioners challenged prolonged investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence and consequential withholding of refunds. The factual background showed that investigations continued for years without issuance of show cause notices.The Court held that indefinite investigation without crystallisation of liability is impermissible. Authorities were directed to complete investigation and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated timeframe. Continued restraint on refunds without adjudication was held to be unsustainable.
Sance Laboratories Private Limited vs Union of India & Ors. 10-10-2024
The petitioners challenged prolonged investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence and consequential withholding of refunds. The factual background showed that investigations continued for years without issuance of show cause notices.The Court held that indefinite investigation without crystallisation of liability is impermissible. Authorities were directed to complete investigation and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated timeframe. Continued restraint on refunds without adjudication was held to be unsustainable.
The petitioner challenged rejection of a GST refund claim on the ground of alleged procedural deficiencies. The factual background showed that the refund was denied despite the petitioner having fulfilled substantive conditions, solely on account of technical lapses in documentation.The Court held that refund claims cannot be rejected for mere procedural irregularities when substantive eligibility is not in dispute. Authorities are required to adopt a pragmatic approach and provide opportunity to rectify defects. The impugned rejection order was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Ms. Barminco Indian Underground Mining Services LLP vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. 04-10-2024
The petitioner challenged rejection of a GST refund claim on the ground of alleged procedural deficiencies. The factual background showed that the refund was denied despite the petitioner having fulfilled substantive conditions, solely on account of technical lapses in documentation.The Court held that refund claims cannot be rejected for mere procedural irregularities when substantive eligibility is not in dispute. Authorities are required to adopt a pragmatic approach and provide opportunity to rectify defects. The impugned rejection order was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The petitioner challenged rejection of refund on limitation despite an appellate order directing reconsideration on merits. The factual background showed that the Assistant Commissioner ignored the appellate authority’s directions and again rejected the claim as time-barred.The Court held that a subordinate authority cannot sit in appeal over or disregard binding appellate orders. Such action was held to be contrary to administrative discipline. The refund rejection order was set aside.
Proxima Steel Forge Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. 03-10-2024
The petitioner challenged rejection of refund on limitation despite an appellate order directing reconsideration on merits. The factual background showed that the Assistant Commissioner ignored the appellate authority’s directions and again rejected the claim as time-barred.The Court held that a subordinate authority cannot sit in appeal over or disregard binding appellate orders. Such action was held to be contrary to administrative discipline. The refund rejection order was set aside.
The petitioner challenged demand of GST on reinsurance services relating to government insurance schemes. The factual background showed that exemption notifications were amended and clarificatory in nature. The petitioner also challenged the demand as being barred by limitation.The Court held that the exemption notification was clarificatory and applicable retrospectively. Consequently, the demand raised was unsustainable. The impugned show cause notice and adjudication order were quashed.
AXA France Vie-India vs Union of India & Ors. 01-10-2024
The petitioner challenged demand of GST on reinsurance services relating to government insurance schemes. The factual background showed that exemption notifications were amended and clarificatory in nature. The petitioner also challenged the demand as being barred by limitation.The Court held that the exemption notification was clarificatory and applicable retrospectively. Consequently, the demand raised was unsustainable. The impugned show cause notice and adjudication order were quashed.
