The petitioner challenged attachment and proposed sale of property purchased from a partnership firm which had outstanding GST dues. The factual background showed that the petitioner claimed to be a bona fide purchaser and that no prior notice was issued to her before attachment.The Court held that questions relating to bona fide purchase and applicability of Section 81 of the GST Act require factual adjudication and cannot be conclusively decided in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to establish her claim before the appropriate forum.
The petitioner challenged attachment and proposed sale of property purchased from a partnership firm which had outstanding GST dues. The factual background showed that the petitioner claimed to be a bona fide purchaser and that no prior notice was issued to her before attachment.The Court held that questions relating to bona fide purchase and applicability of Section 81 of the GST Act require factual adjudication and cannot be conclusively decided in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to establish her claim before the appropriate forum.
The petitioner challenged penalty orders passed under Section 74 read with Section 122 of the GST Act on the ground that they were issued before expiry of the adjournment period granted. The factual background showed that orders were passed prior to completion of the adjournment granted by the authority.The Court held that passing orders before expiry of the granted time violates principles of natural justice. The impugned penalty orders were set aside.
Velplex Industries vs State Tax Officer (Intelligence) 17-07-2024
The petitioner challenged penalty orders passed under Section 74 read with Section 122 of the GST Act on the ground that they were issued before expiry of the adjournment period granted. The factual background showed that orders were passed prior to completion of the adjournment granted by the authority.The Court held that passing orders before expiry of the granted time violates principles of natural justice. The impugned penalty orders were set aside.
The petitioner challenged an order confirming recovery of IGST refund on exports along with interest and penalty by invoking Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules. The factual background showed that the petitioner had availed benefits under certain exemption notifications while also claiming refund of IGST paid on exports.The Court held that Rule 96(10) validly restricts refund of IGST where the exporter has availed benefits of concessional procurement of inputs. The impugned order was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Shobikaa Impex Private Limited vs Union of India & Ors. 01-07-2024
The petitioner challenged an order confirming recovery of IGST refund on exports along with interest and penalty by invoking Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules. The factual background showed that the petitioner had availed benefits under certain exemption notifications while also claiming refund of IGST paid on exports.The Court held that Rule 96(10) validly restricts refund of IGST where the exporter has availed benefits of concessional procurement of inputs. The impugned order was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice and suspension of GST registration issued under Section 29(2)(e) alleging fraud and suppression of facts. The factual background revealed that the notice merely reproduced the language of the statute without disclosing any factual basis or material particulars.The Court held that a show cause notice must disclose the factual foundation of the allegations to enable an effective reply. Cryptic notices without particulars amount to non-application of mind and violate principles of natural justice. The impugned notice and consequential action were set aside.
Nice Rayees Metals vs State Tax Officer & Ors. 29-03-2024
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice and suspension of GST registration issued under Section 29(2)(e) alleging fraud and suppression of facts. The factual background revealed that the notice merely reproduced the language of the statute without disclosing any factual basis or material particulars.The Court held that a show cause notice must disclose the factual foundation of the allegations to enable an effective reply. Cryptic notices without particulars amount to non-application of mind and violate principles of natural justice. The impugned notice and consequential action were set aside.
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice and suspension of GST registration alleging fraud and non-existence of business. The factual background showed that the notice did not disclose material particulars or supporting documents, thereby preventing effective reply.The Court held that a show cause notice for cancellation must disclose specific allegations and material relied upon. Cryptic notices without documents violate principles of natural justice. The impugned notice and suspension order were quashed.
M/s Baba Industries vs Union of India & Ors. 22-03-2024
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice and suspension of GST registration alleging fraud and non-existence of business. The factual background showed that the notice did not disclose material particulars or supporting documents, thereby preventing effective reply.The Court held that a show cause notice for cancellation must disclose specific allegations and material relied upon. Cryptic notices without documents violate principles of natural justice. The impugned notice and suspension order were quashed.
The petitioner challenged detention of goods and levy of tax and penalty under Section 129 despite goods being accompanied by valid invoices, e-way bills and transport documents. The factual background showed that proceedings were initiated solely on suspicion without recording any finding of evasion.The Court held that detention of goods is permissible only when documents are absent or defective. Where all statutory documents are available, initiation of proceedings under Section 129 is illegal. The impugned orders were quashed and refund of amounts directed.
M/s Samira Enterprises vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 09-12-2021
The petitioner challenged detention of goods and levy of tax and penalty under Section 129 despite goods being accompanied by valid invoices, e-way bills and transport documents. The factual background showed that proceedings were initiated solely on suspicion without recording any finding of evasion.The Court held that detention of goods is permissible only when documents are absent or defective. Where all statutory documents are available, initiation of proceedings under Section 129 is illegal. The impugned orders were quashed and refund of amounts directed.
The petitioner challenged penalty orders passed under Section 129 of the GST Act on account of an incorrect mention of delivery location in the e-way bill. The factual background showed that all statutory documents accompanied the goods and there was no discrepancy in quantity or value.The Court held that penalty under Section 129 requires existence of mens rea or intent to evade tax. A mere clerical or human error in the e-way bill, without any intention to evade tax, does not justify levy of penalty. The impugned penalty orders were set aside.
M/s Uttam Electric Store vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 30-09-2020
The petitioner challenged penalty orders passed under Section 129 of the GST Act on account of an incorrect mention of delivery location in the e-way bill. The factual background showed that all statutory documents accompanied the goods and there was no discrepancy in quantity or value.The Court held that penalty under Section 129 requires existence of mens rea or intent to evade tax. A mere clerical or human error in the e-way bill, without any intention to evade tax, does not justify levy of penalty. The impugned penalty orders were set aside.
The petitioner, an unincorporated joint venture, challenged demand orders proposing GST liability in the State of Telangana on the entire contract value, despite execution of works in both Telangana and Maharashtra. The factual background showed that tax deducted at source by the contractee was remitted entirely to Telangana, leading to excess balance in the electronic cash ledger of the petitioner in that State.The Court examined the statutory scheme relating to place of supply and allocation of tax liability in inter-State works contracts. Interim protection was granted earlier, and the matter was considered in the context of allocation of turnover and tax between the States based on actual execution of work.
L & T PES JV vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. 13-03-2020
The petitioner, an unincorporated joint venture, challenged demand orders proposing GST liability in the State of Telangana on the entire contract value, despite execution of works in both Telangana and Maharashtra. The factual background showed that tax deducted at source by the contractee was remitted entirely to Telangana, leading to excess balance in the electronic cash ledger of the petitioner in that State.The Court examined the statutory scheme relating to place of supply and allocation of tax liability in inter-State works contracts. Interim protection was granted earlier, and the matter was considered in the context of allocation of turnover and tax between the States based on actual execution of work.
