The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 74 which was based on an audit conducted under Section 65 of the CGST Act. The factual background showed that although documents were furnished during audit, no discrepancy notice under Rule 101(4) was issued prior to initiation of proceedings.The Court held that issuance of a show cause notice solely on the basis of an audit report, without following the mandatory statutory procedure, was unsustainable. The audit mechanism cannot substitute adjudication and independent application of mind. The impugned show cause notice was quashed.
Infiniti Retail Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. 10-09-2024
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 74 which was based on an audit conducted under Section 65 of the CGST Act. The factual background showed that although documents were furnished during audit, no discrepancy notice under Rule 101(4) was issued prior to initiation of proceedings.The Court held that issuance of a show cause notice solely on the basis of an audit report, without following the mandatory statutory procedure, was unsustainable. The audit mechanism cannot substitute adjudication and independent application of mind. The impugned show cause notice was quashed.
The petitioner association sought directions for clarification on GST applicability to Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), contending that ambiguity had arisen due to tender conditions issued by SECI. The factual background showed that the tender required GST to be passed through, creating uncertainty on ITC eligibility and tax incidence.The Court held that SECI has no authority to issue binding clarifications determining GST liability. Clarification on taxability falls within the domain of statutory authorities under the GST law. Directions were issued for appropriate consideration by competent authorities, while reiterating that SECI’s tender conditions cannot override statutory provisions.
Association of Power Producers vs Solar Energy Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. 10-09-2024
The petitioner association sought directions for clarification on GST applicability to Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), contending that ambiguity had arisen due to tender conditions issued by SECI. The factual background showed that the tender required GST to be passed through, creating uncertainty on ITC eligibility and tax incidence.The Court held that SECI has no authority to issue binding clarifications determining GST liability. Clarification on taxability falls within the domain of statutory authorities under the GST law. Directions were issued for appropriate consideration by competent authorities, while reiterating that SECI’s tender conditions cannot override statutory provisions.
The petitioner challenged proceedings declaring a property sale as void under Section 17-A of the APGST Act on the ground that the transfer was allegedly made to evade sales tax dues of a private limited company under liquidation. The factual background showed that the sale was executed years prior for consideration and without notice of pending proceedings.The Court held that invocation of Section 17-A requires proof that the transfer was made to defraud revenue and that adequate consideration and bona fide purchase are protected under the proviso. In the absence of material establishing fraudulent intent, the impugned proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction and were set aside.
Manikonda Rama Rao vs Deputy Commissioner (CT) & Ors. 09-09-2024
The petitioner challenged proceedings declaring a property sale as void under Section 17-A of the APGST Act on the ground that the transfer was allegedly made to evade sales tax dues of a private limited company under liquidation. The factual background showed that the sale was executed years prior for consideration and without notice of pending proceedings.The Court held that invocation of Section 17-A requires proof that the transfer was made to defraud revenue and that adequate consideration and bona fide purchase are protected under the proviso. In the absence of material establishing fraudulent intent, the impugned proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction and were set aside.
The petitioner challenged proceedings declaring a sale deed as void under Section 17-A of the APGST Act on the allegation that the transfer was made to evade sales tax dues of a company under liquidation. The factual background showed that the sale was effected for consideration much prior to initiation of proceedings and that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser.The Court held that Section 17-A can be invoked only when the transfer is proved to be intended to defraud revenue. In the absence of material establishing fraudulent intent and considering the long delay in initiation of proceedings, the impugned order was held to be without jurisdiction and was set aside.
Manikonda Rama Rao vs Deputy Commissioner (CT) & Ors. 09-09-2024
The petitioner challenged proceedings declaring a sale deed as void under Section 17-A of the APGST Act on the allegation that the transfer was made to evade sales tax dues of a company under liquidation. The factual background showed that the sale was effected for consideration much prior to initiation of proceedings and that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser.The Court held that Section 17-A can be invoked only when the transfer is proved to be intended to defraud revenue. In the absence of material establishing fraudulent intent and considering the long delay in initiation of proceedings, the impugned order was held to be without jurisdiction and was set aside.
The petitioner challenged an order-in-original on the ground that the show cause notice was issued by an authority lacking territorial jurisdiction. The factual background showed that the petitioner did not raise the jurisdictional objection before the adjudicating authority, but sought to invoke writ jurisdiction directly.The Court held that the question of jurisdiction involved mixed questions of fact and law which could be effectively examined by the appellate authority under Section 107. The petitioner was relegated to the alternate statutory remedy, with liberty to raise all contentions including jurisdiction.
Jain Housing and Construction Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner & Ors. 05-09-2024
The petitioner challenged an order-in-original on the ground that the show cause notice was issued by an authority lacking territorial jurisdiction. The factual background showed that the petitioner did not raise the jurisdictional objection before the adjudicating authority, but sought to invoke writ jurisdiction directly.The Court held that the question of jurisdiction involved mixed questions of fact and law which could be effectively examined by the appellate authority under Section 107. The petitioner was relegated to the alternate statutory remedy, with liberty to raise all contentions including jurisdiction.
The Revenue challenged the order of the CESTAT setting aside recovery proceedings initiated for refund earlier granted to the assessee. The factual background showed that the refund was sanctioned based on the prevailing Supreme Court judgment in SRD Nutrients, which was later overruled.The Court held that refunds granted in accordance with binding law prevailing at the relevant time cannot be recovered merely because of a subsequent change in law. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise vs Alkem Laboratories Ltd. 05-09-2024
The Revenue challenged the order of the CESTAT setting aside recovery proceedings initiated for refund earlier granted to the assessee. The factual background showed that the refund was sanctioned based on the prevailing Supreme Court judgment in SRD Nutrients, which was later overruled.The Court held that refunds granted in accordance with binding law prevailing at the relevant time cannot be recovered merely because of a subsequent change in law. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The petitioner challenged assessment orders denying ITC on the ground that the supplier failed to deposit GST. The factual background showed that purchases were supported by invoices, e-way bills and bank payments, and supplier was registered at the relevant time.The Court held that denial of ITC merely due to supplier default, without evidence of collusion or fake transactions, is prima facie unsustainable. Interim protection was granted subject to partial deposit.
M/s Astol Cleantech Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 04-09-2024
The petitioner challenged assessment orders denying ITC on the ground that the supplier failed to deposit GST. The factual background showed that purchases were supported by invoices, e-way bills and bank payments, and supplier was registered at the relevant time.The Court held that denial of ITC merely due to supplier default, without evidence of collusion or fake transactions, is prima facie unsustainable. Interim protection was granted subject to partial deposit.
The Revenue challenged the order of CESTAT which granted relief to the assessee by setting aside penalties and remanding the matter concerning alleged clubbing of clearances of two entities for denial of SSI exemption. The factual background involved allegations of financial flow-back, common management, and misuse of exemption notifications.The Court examined the factual findings of the Tribunal and the evidence relied upon by the Revenue. It held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order.
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise vs Mica Mold 04-09-2024
The Revenue challenged the order of CESTAT which granted relief to the assessee by setting aside penalties and remanding the matter concerning alleged clubbing of clearances of two entities for denial of SSI exemption. The factual background involved allegations of financial flow-back, common management, and misuse of exemption notifications.The Court examined the factual findings of the Tribunal and the evidence relied upon by the Revenue. It held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order.
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued in 2017 which remained unadjudicated for nearly six years. The factual background showed that detailed replies and personal hearings had already taken place, yet no order was passed until proceedings were suddenly revived in 2023.The Court held that such inordinate and unexplained delay in adjudication vitiates the proceedings. The explanation of departmental restructuring due to GST implementation was rejected. Since the issue was also covered by a subsequent Supreme Court judgment in the petitioner’s own case, continuation of proceedings was held to be impermissible. The show cause notice was quashed.
Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad vs Union of India & Ors. 03-09-2024
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued in 2017 which remained unadjudicated for nearly six years. The factual background showed that detailed replies and personal hearings had already taken place, yet no order was passed until proceedings were suddenly revived in 2023.The Court held that such inordinate and unexplained delay in adjudication vitiates the proceedings. The explanation of departmental restructuring due to GST implementation was rejected. Since the issue was also covered by a subsequent Supreme Court judgment in the petitioner’s own case, continuation of proceedings was held to be impermissible. The show cause notice was quashed.
The petitioner challenged parallel and overlapping investigations conducted by the State GST authorities and the DGGI in respect of alleged fraudulent availment and passing of ITC through fake firms. The factual background showed that for the same period, records had already been seized and proceedings initiated by the State GST authorities pursuant to earlier directions of the High Court that only one agency should conduct inquiry. Despite this, DGGI conducted search, seizure and further inquiry.The Court examined the statutory scheme and earlier directions and held that once proceedings were already being undertaken by the State GST authorities, initiation of parallel proceedings by another central agency for the same cause and period was impermissible. The Court directed that investigation for the relevant period shall be carried out by one agency alone, in accordance with law.
Stalwart Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. 28-08-2024
The petitioner challenged parallel and overlapping investigations conducted by the State GST authorities and the DGGI in respect of alleged fraudulent availment and passing of ITC through fake firms. The factual background showed that for the same period, records had already been seized and proceedings initiated by the State GST authorities pursuant to earlier directions of the High Court that only one agency should conduct inquiry. Despite this, DGGI conducted search, seizure and further inquiry.The Court examined the statutory scheme and earlier directions and held that once proceedings were already being undertaken by the State GST authorities, initiation of parallel proceedings by another central agency for the same cause and period was impermissible. The Court directed that investigation for the relevant period shall be carried out by one agency alone, in accordance with law.
