Tune In – Discover Expert Discussions on GST, Income Tax, and More
The appeal challenges an ex parte tax order citing a lack of fair hearing, but the court dismissed it, ruling the petitioner's absence was due to their own lapse.
GROUNDS OF WRIT-The Petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Bench, has chosen to appeal before a larger bench. The grievance arises from the impugned order issued by the First Respondent. which determined tax liability along with interest and penalty. The Petitioner contends that the order was passed ex parte, without being given a fair opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
ORDER
The writ petition challenges the Show Cause Notice (SCN) as time-barred under Section 73(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the court has set it aside, affirming that the statutory time limit is mandatory and must be adhered to.
GROUNDS OF WRIT-The Petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN), has filed a Writ Petition. They argue that the SCN, issued on November 30, 2024, for the financial year 2020-21, under Section 73 of the CGST Act,2017. Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that, as per Section 73(2), the SCN should have been issued at least three months before the last date for issue of the order. In this case, the deadline for issuance would have been November 28, 2024, renderi ...
The Court set aside the order rejecting the refund claim and directed the Respondent to issue a fresh order, ensuring adherence to natural justice and judicial discipline, allowing the refund application under the "Other" category if the system restricts filing under the same category.
Grounds of Writ-The Petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting their refund claim, filed a Writ Petition. They argued that the refund was denied based on the reasoning that a refund request cannot be filed for the same period and under the same category on the GSTN
portal. The Petitioner also highlighted that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in their favor, yet the Additional Commissioner (Appeals - Il) issued an adverse order. Furthermore, the Pet ...
The court set aside the deficiency memo rejecting the refund as time-barred, ruling that "may" is directory, not mandatory, and directed the refund with interest within six weeks.
Grounds of Writ-The Petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the deficiency memo issued for rejecting the refund of the pre-deposit application filed beyond the two-year limit, argues that the term "may" is directory in nature rather than mandatory. The Petitioner also cited the judgment delivered by the Madras High Court in the case of lenovo India Pvt. Itd. vs. loint Commissioner of GST [2023 TAXONATION 1882 (MADRAS)], where it was similarly held tha ...
The Court set aside the arbitrary bank account attachment, ruling it a misuse of authority, and ordered its immediate revocation while ensuring the Petitioner’s access and compliance with prior tax credit notification.
Grounds of Writ-The Petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the attachment of their bank account, has filed a writ Petition. Tney argue that the attachment was arbitrary and lacked proper justification for the reasons provided. Furthermore, they assert that the action does not align with the guidelines established by the Honourable Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v State of Himachal Pradesh or the directives issued by the CBIC. The Petitioner emphasizes that this bank acco ...
The court invalidated the tax order due to inadequate notice procedural errors, including missing signatures committed by the tax authorities.
Grounds of Writ-The Petitioner argues that the show cause Notice (SCN) and the related orders are invalid because the attachments do not have the required signatures under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. They also claim that the rules of natural justice, as outlined in Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, were not followed.Additionally, The veritioner questions whether issuing a summary SeN satisfies the notice requirement under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Court sets aside order denying ITC due to the delayed filing of GSTR-3B.
Grounds of Writ-The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting their inout tax credit, has filed a writ petition. The denial of input tax credit for the financial year 2018-19 was based on the delayed filing of GSTR-3B for the month of November 2019, as per Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the Petitioner now seeks to claim the benefit under Section 16(5), which permits availing the credit since the returns were submitted before November 30, 2021.
...
