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.
The petitioner challenged an order-in-original on the ground that although a reply to the show cause notice was duly filed on the GST portal, the adjudicating authority erroneously recorded that no reply was submitted. The factual background was supported by portal records showing the status as “Reply furnished, pending for order by tax officer.”The Court held that the finding of the authority was contrary to record and resulted in denial of opportunity of hearing. Non-consideration of the reply amounted to gross violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside with directions to consider the reply and proceed afresh.
OLA Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. 30-09-2024
The petitioner challenged an order-in-original on the ground that although a reply to the show cause notice was duly filed on the GST portal, the adjudicating authority erroneously recorded that no reply was submitted. The factual background was supported by portal records showing the status as “Reply furnished, pending for order by tax officer.”The Court held that the finding of the authority was contrary to record and resulted in denial of opportunity of hearing. Non-consideration of the reply amounted to gross violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside with directions to consider the reply and proceed afresh.
The petitioner challenged blocking of ITC under Rule 86A on the ground that no reasons to believe were recorded and no pre-decisional hearing was granted. The factual background showed that ITC was blocked solely on the basis of third-party investigation reports.The Court held that Rule 86A is a drastic power and can be exercised only after strict compliance with statutory safeguards, including recording of reasons and granting opportunity of hearing. The impugned order blocking ITC was set aside.
Travancore Minerals and Transport Company vs State of Karnataka & Ors. 30-09-2024
The petitioner challenged blocking of ITC under Rule 86A on the ground that no reasons to believe were recorded and no pre-decisional hearing was granted. The factual background showed that ITC was blocked solely on the basis of third-party investigation reports.The Court held that Rule 86A is a drastic power and can be exercised only after strict compliance with statutory safeguards, including recording of reasons and granting opportunity of hearing. The impugned order blocking ITC was set aside.
The petitioner challenged the advance ruling and appellate advance ruling holding that the value of diesel supplied free of cost by the service recipient should be included in the taxable value of GTA services. The factual background showed that fuel was supplied by the recipient and did not form part of consideration.The Court held that only consideration agreed between the parties can form part of taxable value under Section 15. Free diesel supplied by the recipient does not constitute consideration. The impugned advance rulings were set aside.
New Jai Hind Transport Service vs Union of India & Ors. 27-09-2024
The petitioner challenged the advance ruling and appellate advance ruling holding that the value of diesel supplied free of cost by the service recipient should be included in the taxable value of GTA services. The factual background showed that fuel was supplied by the recipient and did not form part of consideration.The Court held that only consideration agreed between the parties can form part of taxable value under Section 15. Free diesel supplied by the recipient does not constitute consideration. The impugned advance rulings were set aside.
The legal heir of the deceased assessee challenged assessment orders and recovery proceedings passed in the name of a person who had died prior to issuance of notices. The factual background showed that all notices and consequential orders were issued without knowledge of death of the assessee.The Court held that proceedings initiated and orders passed against a dead person are void ab initio. The impugned orders were set aside with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law after issuing notice to the legal heir.
Ramasamy Singaravelan (Deceased) vs Deputy State Tax Officer 25-09-2024
The legal heir of the deceased assessee challenged assessment orders and recovery proceedings passed in the name of a person who had died prior to issuance of notices. The factual background showed that all notices and consequential orders were issued without knowledge of death of the assessee.The Court held that proceedings initiated and orders passed against a dead person are void ab initio. The impugned orders were set aside with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law after issuing notice to the legal heir.
The petitioner challenged a penalty order passed under Section 129 on the ground that it was issued beyond the statutory period of seven days from service of notice. The factual background showed that although notice was served in time, the final order was passed beyond the permissible period.The Court held that Section 129(3) prescribes a mandatory time limit and any order passed beyond such period is void. The impugned penalty order was set aside.
M/s Kedia Enterprises vs State of Bihar & Ors. 25-09-2024
The petitioner challenged a penalty order passed under Section 129 on the ground that it was issued beyond the statutory period of seven days from service of notice. The factual background showed that although notice was served in time, the final order was passed beyond the permissible period.The Court held that Section 129(3) prescribes a mandatory time limit and any order passed beyond such period is void. The impugned penalty order was set aside.
The petitioners challenged orders passed under Rule 86A whereby the tax authorities blocked input tax credit in excess of the balance available in the electronic credit ledger, resulting in a negative balance. The factual background showed that such blocking prevented utilization of future ITC until the negative balance was neutralised. The core issue before the Court was whether Rule 86A permits blocking of ITC beyond the credit actually available at the time of passing the order.The Court held that Rule 86A only authorises restriction on debit of credit that is available in the electronic credit ledger and does not permit creation of an artificial negative balance. Blocking credit beyond the existing balance was held to be without authority of law. The impugned orders were quashed to the extent they blocked ITC beyond the available balance.
Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Meerut & Ors. 24-09-2024
The petitioners challenged orders passed under Rule 86A whereby the tax authorities blocked input tax credit in excess of the balance available in the electronic credit ledger, resulting in a negative balance. The factual background showed that such blocking prevented utilization of future ITC until the negative balance was neutralised. The core issue before the Court was whether Rule 86A permits blocking of ITC beyond the credit actually available at the time of passing the order.The Court held that Rule 86A only authorises restriction on debit of credit that is available in the electronic credit ledger and does not permit creation of an artificial negative balance. Blocking credit beyond the existing balance was held to be without authority of law. The impugned orders were quashed to the extent they blocked ITC beyond the available balance.
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice alleging misclassification of two-wheeler seats and short payment of GST for the period from 2017 onwards. The factual background showed that the petitioner had already paid differential tax under protest owing to prevailing classification disputes.The Court held that the issues raised involved disputed questions of fact and classification which require adjudication. Since the petitioner had an opportunity to respond to the notice, interference at the show cause notice stage was not warranted. The writ petition was dismissed.
Uno Minda Limited vs Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise 23-09-2024
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice alleging misclassification of two-wheeler seats and short payment of GST for the period from 2017 onwards. The factual background showed that the petitioner had already paid differential tax under protest owing to prevailing classification disputes.The Court held that the issues raised involved disputed questions of fact and classification which require adjudication. Since the petitioner had an opportunity to respond to the notice, interference at the show cause notice stage was not warranted. The writ petition was dismissed.
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order confirming GST demand on supply of free power to State Governments, treating it as consideration for licensing services. The factual background showed that free power was supplied as compensation under hydropower policies and not under a commercial contract.The Court noted that similar demands under the Service Tax regime had been dropped and the issue required detailed examination. Notice was issued and the matter was kept pending for final adjudication.
NHPC Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner, CGST & Ors. 20-09-2024
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order confirming GST demand on supply of free power to State Governments, treating it as consideration for licensing services. The factual background showed that free power was supplied as compensation under hydropower policies and not under a commercial contract.The Court noted that similar demands under the Service Tax regime had been dropped and the issue required detailed examination. Notice was issued and the matter was kept pending for final adjudication.
The petitioner challenged cancellation of GST registration on the ground of violation of Rule 86B for excess utilisation of ITC. The factual background showed that tax liability was discharged using electronic credit ledger and no revenue loss was caused to the department.The Court held that cancellation of registration is a drastic measure and should be resorted to only in serious cases. Mere violation of Rule 86B, without revenue loss or fraudulent intent, was held insufficient to justify cancellation. The cancellation order was set aside.
M/s A.M. Enterprises vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors 20-09-2024
The petitioner challenged cancellation of GST registration on the ground of violation of Rule 86B for excess utilisation of ITC. The factual background showed that tax liability was discharged using electronic credit ledger and no revenue loss was caused to the department.The Court held that cancellation of registration is a drastic measure and should be resorted to only in serious cases. Mere violation of Rule 86B, without revenue loss or fraudulent intent, was held insufficient to justify cancellation. The cancellation order was set aside.
