The petitioner challenged a show cause notice proposing levy of GST at 28% instead of the prevailing rate of 18% on the ground of change in interpretation. The factual background showed that the petitioner sought writ intervention at the notice stage, alleging discrimination and non-reference to the GST Council.The Court held that a show cause notice cannot ordinarily be challenged under writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies are available. Since the petitioner had an opportunity to file a reply and be heard before adjudication, interference at the notice stage was unwarranted. The writ petition was dismissed.
M/s Hero Motocorp Limited vs Union of India & Ors. 27-08-2024
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice proposing levy of GST at 28% instead of the prevailing rate of 18% on the ground of change in interpretation. The factual background showed that the petitioner sought writ intervention at the notice stage, alleging discrimination and non-reference to the GST Council.The Court held that a show cause notice cannot ordinarily be challenged under writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies are available. Since the petitioner had an opportunity to file a reply and be heard before adjudication, interference at the notice stage was unwarranted. The writ petition was dismissed.
The petitioner challenged an order reversing input tax credit on the allegation that the supplier was a bogus entity and had not paid tax. The factual background showed that the department relied on investigation reports to reverse ITC and the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction alleging non-consideration of its reply.The Court held that the case involved disputed questions of fact regarding genuineness of transactions and existence of the supplier. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with liberty to avail statutory appellate remedy, and directions were issued to consider the appeal on merits if filed within the stipulated period.
M/s N.H. Lubricants vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. 25-08-2024
The petitioner challenged an order reversing input tax credit on the allegation that the supplier was a bogus entity and had not paid tax. The factual background showed that the department relied on investigation reports to reverse ITC and the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction alleging non-consideration of its reply.The Court held that the case involved disputed questions of fact regarding genuineness of transactions and existence of the supplier. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with liberty to avail statutory appellate remedy, and directions were issued to consider the appeal on merits if filed within the stipulated period.
The petitioner challenged an order dismissing its statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act as barred by limitation. The factual background showed that though the appellate authority correctly held that it had no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction seeking restoration of the appeal.The Court held that while statutory authorities are bound by limitation under Section 107, the High Court’s powers under Article 226 are not so constrained. In the interest of justice, the impugned order was quashed and the statutory appeal was restored subject to compliance with statutory pre-deposit and other conditions.
M/s Shree Shakti Minerals vs Commissioner, Central GST & Ors. 25-08-2024
The petitioner challenged an order dismissing its statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act as barred by limitation. The factual background showed that though the appellate authority correctly held that it had no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction seeking restoration of the appeal.The Court held that while statutory authorities are bound by limitation under Section 107, the High Court’s powers under Article 226 are not so constrained. In the interest of justice, the impugned order was quashed and the statutory appeal was restored subject to compliance with statutory pre-deposit and other conditions.
The petitioners challenged attachment and recovery proceedings initiated for VAT, CST and GST dues after the company was sold as a going concern under the IBC. The factual background showed that statutory dues were treated as operational debt and settled under the approved acquisition plan.The Court held that once the resolution and acquisition plan attained finality, all prior claims stood extinguished. Recovery proceedings initiated thereafter were held to be illegal and were quashed.
Su-Kam Power System Ltd. & Anr. vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 21-08-2024
The petitioners challenged attachment and recovery proceedings initiated for VAT, CST and GST dues after the company was sold as a going concern under the IBC. The factual background showed that statutory dues were treated as operational debt and settled under the approved acquisition plan.The Court held that once the resolution and acquisition plan attained finality, all prior claims stood extinguished. Recovery proceedings initiated thereafter were held to be illegal and were quashed.
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice proposing levy of IGST on equity capital infused by the holding company and on External Commercial Borrowings. The factual background showed that the transactions were in the nature of capital infusion and interest-based borrowings, which were exempt under relevant GST notifications.The Court held that the issues raised were squarely covered by earlier decisions holding that equity infusion and ECB transactions do not constitute supply under GST. The show cause notice was quashed to the extent it proposed levy contrary to settled law.
A.O. Smith India Water Products Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Karnataka & Ors. 20-08-2024
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice proposing levy of IGST on equity capital infused by the holding company and on External Commercial Borrowings. The factual background showed that the transactions were in the nature of capital infusion and interest-based borrowings, which were exempt under relevant GST notifications.The Court held that the issues raised were squarely covered by earlier decisions holding that equity infusion and ECB transactions do not constitute supply under GST. The show cause notice was quashed to the extent it proposed levy contrary to settled law.
The petitioner, Commissioner of CGST, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the final judgment and order dated 17 August 2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 6739/2021, wherein relief had been granted to the respondent, Deepak Khandelwal, in relation to proceedings initiated under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing and exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment. After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the judgment of the Delhi High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions and disposed of all pending applications.
Commissioner of CGST v. Deepak Khandelwal 14-08-2024
The petitioner, Commissioner of CGST, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the final judgment and order dated 17 August 2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 6739/2021, wherein relief had been granted to the respondent, Deepak Khandelwal, in relation to proceedings initiated under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing and exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment. After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the judgment of the Delhi High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions and disposed of all pending applications.
The petitioner apprehended arrest in connection with offences under the IPC and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act alleging illegal transportation of coal with forged documents. The factual background showed that the petitioner claimed the vehicle was accompanied by valid GST and transportation documents and that he had no criminal antecedents.The Court, after considering the materials on record and the submissions of the parties, held that the petitioner had made out a case for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Prabhu Sao @ Prabhu Sah vs State of Jharkhand 13-08-2024
The petitioner apprehended arrest in connection with offences under the IPC and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act alleging illegal transportation of coal with forged documents. The factual background showed that the petitioner claimed the vehicle was accompanied by valid GST and transportation documents and that he had no criminal antecedents.The Court, after considering the materials on record and the submissions of the parties, held that the petitioner had made out a case for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
The petitioner, a State Tax Officer, challenged his suspension order issued on the allegation that refund of IGST was granted without proper verification. The factual background showed that refunds were sanctioned within statutory timelines and in accordance with prescribed circulars.The Court held that grant of refund is a quasi-judicial function and disciplinary action cannot be initiated merely on account of a different opinion or subsequent detection of fraud by the exporter. The suspension order was quashed.
S. Doctor Viswanathan vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 07-08-2024
The petitioner, a State Tax Officer, challenged his suspension order issued on the allegation that refund of IGST was granted without proper verification. The factual background showed that refunds were sanctioned within statutory timelines and in accordance with prescribed circulars.The Court held that grant of refund is a quasi-judicial function and disciplinary action cannot be initiated merely on account of a different opinion or subsequent detection of fraud by the exporter. The suspension order was quashed.
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 73 covering multiple financial years in a single proceeding. The factual background showed that the notice clubbed tax periods from 2019-20 to 2023-24 without issuing separate notices for each year.The Court held that Section 73 contemplates independent proceedings for each tax period and clubbing of multiple years in a single notice is impermissible. The impugned notice and summary were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.
Bangalore Golf Club vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 07-08-2024
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 73 covering multiple financial years in a single proceeding. The factual background showed that the notice clubbed tax periods from 2019-20 to 2023-24 without issuing separate notices for each year.The Court held that Section 73 contemplates independent proceedings for each tax period and clubbing of multiple years in a single notice is impermissible. The impugned notice and summary were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.
The petitioner challenged an appellate advance ruling holding that GST was payable on works contract services executed entirely in Maldives. The factual background showed that the construction project was undertaken pursuant to a Government-to-Government agreement, executed through a fixed establishment in Maldives, and was registered under Maldivian GST law.The Court examined the scope of territorial applicability of CGST and IGST Acts, provisions relating to place of supply, and location of supplier. The challenge to the advance ruling was considered in light of statutory provisions and binding constitutional principles.
Avantika Contractors (I) Ltd. vs Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (GST) & Ors. 06-08-2024
The petitioner challenged an appellate advance ruling holding that GST was payable on works contract services executed entirely in Maldives. The factual background showed that the construction project was undertaken pursuant to a Government-to-Government agreement, executed through a fixed establishment in Maldives, and was registered under Maldivian GST law.The Court examined the scope of territorial applicability of CGST and IGST Acts, provisions relating to place of supply, and location of supplier. The challenge to the advance ruling was considered in light of statutory provisions and binding constitutional principles.
