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 appellant, Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, filed appeals challenging the orders of the tribunal relating to the levy of service tax on certain transactions undertaken by M/s Citibank N.A. under the Finance Act, 1994. The issue involved the classification and taxability of banking and financial services, particularly concerning whether certain inter-branch and inter-company financial transactions were liable to service tax. The department contended that the services provided by Citibank fell within the ambit of taxable services under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, whereas the respondent maintained that the activities did not amount to a taxable service and were exempted under the relevant provisions.The Supreme Court heard the parties and disposed of the appeals in terms of its non-reportable judgment. The Court upheld the reasoning of the lower forum, thereby settling the dispute in accordance with the findings of the tribunal. All pending applications, including stay applications, were also disposed of as a consequence of the main decision.
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s Citibank N.A. 16-10-2024
The appellant, Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, filed appeals challenging the orders of the tribunal relating to the levy of service tax on certain transactions undertaken by M/s Citibank N.A. under the Finance Act, 1994. The issue involved the classification and taxability of banking and financial services, particularly concerning whether certain inter-branch and inter-company financial transactions were liable to service tax. The department contended that the services provided by Citibank fell within the ambit of taxable services under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, whereas the respondent maintained that the activities did not amount to a taxable service and were exempted under the relevant provisions.The Supreme Court heard the parties and disposed of the appeals in terms of its non-reportable judgment. The Court upheld the reasoning of the lower forum, thereby settling the dispute in accordance with the findings of the tribunal. All pending applications, including stay applications, were also disposed of as a consequence of the main decision.
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 respondents, including M/s Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd., were engaged in constructing commercial malls and intended to let out the premises on rent. They sought to utilise accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods and services used for such construction against their GST liability on rental income. However, the tax authorities denied the claim by invoking Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, which blocks ITC on goods and services used for the “construction of immovable property” on one’s own account.The Orissa High Court, in Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of CGST (2019), read down Section 17(5)(d), holding that denial of ITC where GST was payable on rental income would defeat the purpose of the GST regime. The Union of India challenged this decision, arguing that the provision was constitutionally valid and based on intelligible classification between immovable and movable property.The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 17(5)(c) and (d) of the CGST Act, 2017. It ruled that ITC is a statutory, not a constitutional, right and may be restricted by legislative policy. The Court found that the differentiation between assessees constructing immovable property for sale and those constructing it for letting out has a rational nexus with the legislative objective of preventing revenue leakage.It held that the expression “plant or machinery” in Section 17(5)(d) must be read in conjunction with the definition of “plant and machinery” in the Explanation to Section 17, and both refer to movable assets. Thus, immovable structures such as shopping malls and buildings do not qualify as “plant.”The Court further ruled that the denial of ITC on construction of immovable property, even if intended for renting, is consistent with the scheme of GST. It overruled the Orissa High Court’s judgment and held that clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) are constitutionally valid and do not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 300A of the Constitution.
Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Others v. M/s Safari Retreats Private Ltd. & Others 03-10-2024
The respondents, including M/s Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd., were engaged in constructing commercial malls and intended to let out the premises on rent. They sought to utilise accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods and services used for such construction against their GST liability on rental income. However, the tax authorities denied the claim by invoking Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, which blocks ITC on goods and services used for the “construction of immovable property” on one’s own account.The Orissa High Court, in Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of CGST (2019), read down Section 17(5)(d), holding that denial of ITC where GST was payable on rental income would defeat the purpose of the GST regime. The Union of India challenged this decision, arguing that the provision was constitutionally valid and based on intelligible classification between immovable and movable property.The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 17(5)(c) and (d) of the CGST Act, 2017. It ruled that ITC is a statutory, not a constitutional, right and may be restricted by legislative policy. The Court found that the differentiation between assessees constructing immovable property for sale and those constructing it for letting out has a rational nexus with the legislative objective of preventing revenue leakage.It held that the expression “plant or machinery” in Section 17(5)(d) must be read in conjunction with the definition of “plant and machinery” in the Explanation to Section 17, and both refer to movable assets. Thus, immovable structures such as shopping malls and buildings do not qualify as “plant.”The Court further ruled that the denial of ITC on construction of immovable property, even if intended for renting, is consistent with the scheme of GST. It overruled the Orissa High Court’s judgment and held that clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) are constitutionally valid and do not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 300A of the Constitution.
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.
