The petitioner challenged penalty orders imposed for transportation of goods with an expired e-way bill. The factual background showed that goods were accompanied by valid invoices and that expiry occurred due to inadvertent delay.The Court held that mere expiry of e-way bill without intent to evade tax does not justify imposition of penalty. The impugned orders were quashed.
Excellent Polycon Private Limited vs State Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation & Ors. 14-11-2024
The petitioner challenged penalty orders imposed for transportation of goods with an expired e-way bill. The factual background showed that goods were accompanied by valid invoices and that expiry occurred due to inadvertent delay.The Court held that mere expiry of e-way bill without intent to evade tax does not justify imposition of penalty. The impugned orders were quashed.
The petitioner challenged penalty and tax demands raised under Section 74 after scrutiny proceedings under Section 61 were dropped. The factual background showed that the department had initially accepted the petitioner’s explanation and later initiated proceedings under Section 74 on the same material.The Court held that such action violates statutory scheme and principles of fairness. Once scrutiny proceedings are dropped, further proceedings on identical grounds are unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed.
J.S.B. Trading Company vs State of Punjab & Ors. 08-11-2024
The petitioner challenged penalty and tax demands raised under Section 74 after scrutiny proceedings under Section 61 were dropped. The factual background showed that the department had initially accepted the petitioner’s explanation and later initiated proceedings under Section 74 on the same material.The Court held that such action violates statutory scheme and principles of fairness. Once scrutiny proceedings are dropped, further proceedings on identical grounds are unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed.
The petitioner challenged notifications and consequential proceedings seeking to levy GST on royalty paid for mining concessions granted by the State. The factual background showed that royalty was paid under statutory mining leases and the levy was sought to be treated as consideration for licensing services.The Court examined the nature of royalty and the statutory framework governing mining concessions. The issue regarding taxability of royalty under GST was considered in light of constitutional provisions and statutory notifications. Interim relief was granted against coercive proceedings.
M/s Lakhwinder Singh Stone Crusher vs Union of India & Ors. 04-11-2024
The petitioner challenged notifications and consequential proceedings seeking to levy GST on royalty paid for mining concessions granted by the State. The factual background showed that royalty was paid under statutory mining leases and the levy was sought to be treated as consideration for licensing services.The Court examined the nature of royalty and the statutory framework governing mining concessions. The issue regarding taxability of royalty under GST was considered in light of constitutional provisions and statutory notifications. Interim relief was granted against coercive proceedings.
The appellant, Rajiv Jindal, along with others, was accused in a financial irregularities case involving misappropriation of funds. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences triable by a Magistrate. The Allahabad High Court had denied bail to the appellants, primarily on the ground that a large amount of public money was involved in the alleged scam. The appellants approached the Supreme Court seeking bail, contending that all offences were bailable or triable by a Magistrate, that they had cooperated during the investigation, and that no criminal antecedents were alleged against them.The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and granted bail to the appellants. It observed that all offences alleged were triable by a Magistrate and that the prosecution had not shown any previous criminal record or antecedents against the appellants. The Court noted that apprehension of witness tampering was speculative and not supported by any material. Considering the nature of the offences and the absence of antecedents, the Court found no justification to deny bail.The Court directed that the appellants be produced before the Trial Court within one week, which shall enlarge them on bail upon appropriate terms and conditions after hearing the Public Prosecutor. The Trial Court was also empowered to impose stringent conditions to ensure fair conduct during the trial. All pending applications were disposed of.
The appellant, Rajiv Jindal, along with others, was accused in a financial irregularities case involving misappropriation of funds. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences triable by a Magistrate. The Allahabad High Court had denied bail to the appellants, primarily on the ground that a large amount of public money was involved in the alleged scam. The appellants approached the Supreme Court seeking bail, contending that all offences were bailable or triable by a Magistrate, that they had cooperated during the investigation, and that no criminal antecedents were alleged against them.The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and granted bail to the appellants. It observed that all offences alleged were triable by a Magistrate and that the prosecution had not shown any previous criminal record or antecedents against the appellants. The Court noted that apprehension of witness tampering was speculative and not supported by any material. Considering the nature of the offences and the absence of antecedents, the Court found no justification to deny bail.The Court directed that the appellants be produced before the Trial Court within one week, which shall enlarge them on bail upon appropriate terms and conditions after hearing the Public Prosecutor. The Trial Court was also empowered to impose stringent conditions to ensure fair conduct during the trial. All pending applications were disposed of.
The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the Assam GST Act on the ground that no proper show cause notice was issued and only a summary in Form DRC-01 was served. The factual background showed that the determination of tax was made without issuance of a valid notice as mandated by law.The Court held that a summary of show cause notice is not a substitute for a proper notice under Section 73(1). Initiation of proceedings and passing of orders without issuing a valid show cause notice violates statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. The impugned assessment order was set aside with liberty to initiate de novo proceedings in accordance with law.
The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the Assam GST Act on the ground that no proper show cause notice was issued and only a summary in Form DRC-01 was served. The factual background showed that the determination of tax was made without issuance of a valid notice as mandated by law.The Court held that a summary of show cause notice is not a substitute for a proper notice under Section 73(1). Initiation of proceedings and passing of orders without issuing a valid show cause notice violates statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. The impugned assessment order was set aside with liberty to initiate de novo proceedings in accordance with law.
The petitioner challenged denial of input tax credit on gold coins and T-shirts distributed for sales promotion. The factual background showed that tax had been paid on procurement of such items but credit was denied treating them as non-business expenditure.The Court held that ITC is not admissible on goods used for sales promotion which do not have direct nexus with outward taxable supplies. The impugned orders were upheld.
M/s ARS Steels and Alloy International Pvt. Ltd. vs State Tax Officer & Anr. 24-10-2024
The petitioner challenged denial of input tax credit on gold coins and T-shirts distributed for sales promotion. The factual background showed that tax had been paid on procurement of such items but credit was denied treating them as non-business expenditure.The Court held that ITC is not admissible on goods used for sales promotion which do not have direct nexus with outward taxable supplies. The impugned orders were upheld.
The petitioner challenged denial of input tax credit on demo vehicles used in the course of business. During pendency of the writ petition, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued a circular clarifying that ITC is available on demo vehicles subject to prescribed conditions. The factual background showed that the impugned order denying credit was passed prior to issuance of the said circular.The Court held that the subsequent CBIC circular would prevail over the impugned order. Since there was no dispute that the petitioner was entitled to ITC in terms of the circular, nothing further survived for adjudication. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Sai Service Private Limited vs Union of India & Ors. 24-10-2024
The petitioner challenged denial of input tax credit on demo vehicles used in the course of business. During pendency of the writ petition, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued a circular clarifying that ITC is available on demo vehicles subject to prescribed conditions. The factual background showed that the impugned order denying credit was passed prior to issuance of the said circular.The Court held that the subsequent CBIC circular would prevail over the impugned order. Since there was no dispute that the petitioner was entitled to ITC in terms of the circular, nothing further survived for adjudication. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
The petitioner challenged dismissal of its statutory appeal on the ground that it was not signed by an authorised signatory and that no board resolution was produced. The factual background showed that the authorised signatory was reflected on the GST portal, though formal proof was not called for by the appellate authority.The Court held that if the appellate authority had any doubt regarding authorisation, it ought to have granted an opportunity to cure the defect. Mechanical dismissal of the appeal was held to be unsustainable. The impugned appellate order was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. 24-10-2024
The petitioner challenged dismissal of its statutory appeal on the ground that it was not signed by an authorised signatory and that no board resolution was produced. The factual background showed that the authorised signatory was reflected on the GST portal, though formal proof was not called for by the appellate authority.The Court held that if the appellate authority had any doubt regarding authorisation, it ought to have granted an opportunity to cure the defect. Mechanical dismissal of the appeal was held to be unsustainable. The impugned appellate order was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The petitioner challenged retrospective cancellation of GST registration on the ground of alleged non-existence at the registered place of business. The factual background showed that cancellation was made retrospectively from the date of registration.The Court held that retrospective cancellation cannot be mechanical and must be supported by cogent reasons. Blanket retrospective cancellation without examining consequences on past transactions was held to be unsustainable. The cancellation order was set aside.
Ram Niwas vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr. Retrospective cancellation of GST registration 23-10-2024
The petitioner challenged retrospective cancellation of GST registration on the ground of alleged non-existence at the registered place of business. The factual background showed that cancellation was made retrospectively from the date of registration.The Court held that retrospective cancellation cannot be mechanical and must be supported by cogent reasons. Blanket retrospective cancellation without examining consequences on past transactions was held to be unsustainable. The cancellation order was set aside.
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.
