The Court Rules in Favour of CNG and PNG Distributor, Quashes Tax Authorities' Demand for Excise Duty Penalties

The petitioner, a company authorized to distribute CNG and PNG in Gurugram, challenged the actions of the tax authorities regarding the delayed payment of excise duty. The Superintendent requested records for an audit covering April 2018 to March 2023 and subsequently claimed that the petitioner failed to deposit excise duties on time, resulting in interest and penalties. The petitioner contended that the recovery actions were based solely on an audit report without due process, arguing that notices issued were unauthorized and that freezing of the company's bank account was illegal.

The authorities claimed the petitioner did not cooperate during the audit and that multiple reminders were sent regarding the outstanding dues. They stated that the petitioner owed a total of approximately Rs.6.99 crore, which included penalties for the delayed payments.

The court determined that the demand for interest and penalties lacked proper procedural adherence, particularly the requirement for a show cause notice before such demands could be enforced. The court emphasized the principles of natural justice, which necessitate an opportunity for the petitioner to respond before any penalties are imposed. Consequently, the court quashed the orders demanding payment and ruled in favour of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition and disposing of all related applications.

Petitioner Claims Violation of GST Procedures by Assessing Authority; Court Issues Stay Pending Additional Tax Deposit

The petitioner, argued that the Assessing Authority violated mandatory legal procedures u/s 73 of the GST Act by failing to issue a pre-show cause notice before imposing tax liability. The petitioner cited a previous court ruling indicating that the lack of this notice constituted a significant legal error, warranting the annulment of the order. Additionally, the petitioner noted the absence of a tribunal, leaving them no option but to seek relief from the High Court. The court acknowledged the need for further consideration and requested a counter affidavit from the Standing Counsel within four weeks, with a subsequent reply from the petitioner allowed within two weeks. A hearing is set for February 13, 2025. Meanwhile, the court temporarily stayed the effects of the Assessing Authority's order, contingent upon the petitioner depositing an additional 10% of the tax liability within three weeks, warning that failure to do so would void the interim order.

The Court Rules in Favor of Petitioner Over Procedural Violation in Penalty Confirmation

The petitioner, involved in providing environmental technology solutions, had goods stopped in Andhra Pradesh during transportation from Telangana to Karnataka. Following the payment of a penalty for the halted goods, the petitioner contested the confirmation of the penalty through a writ petition. The main issue was a procedural violation regarding the inadequate time provided to respond to the show cause notice, which was only seven days. The court ruled in favour of the petitioner, setting aside the penalty order and remanding the matter for a proper hearing in accordance with legal standards.

Dispute Over Tax Dues and Lien Imposed on Petitioner's Account Raises Legal Concerns

The case involves a dispute between a petitioner and respondents regarding tax dues. The respondents appropriated Rs. 62,32,400 from the petitioner’s Axis Bank account towards tax liabilities without adhering to natural justice principles. Following a directive from the Bombay High Court, this amount was initially deposited with the Court and then recredited to the petitioner’s bank account. Subsequently, an Order-in-Original dated 25 May 2023 imposed a lien on the petitioner’s account for dues amounting to Rs. 1,49,87,924.

The petitioner filed a petition against this order, arguing that the lien was illegal and impeded the appeal process. The respondents contended that the petitioner had issued fake invoices for GST credits, raising concerns about the petitioner's conduct. 

The court, balancing the interests of both parties, directed the petitioner’s bank to deposit the total amount into the Court, from which a pre-deposit of Rs. 8,76,564 will be transferred to the respondents to allow the petitioner to appeal the order. The balance will be invested in a fixed deposit, with the appellate authority required to decide the appeal on merits, irrespective of the limitation issue.

The Court Quashes Ex-Parte Order in GST Case, Grants Opportunity for Personal Hearing

The petitioner challenged an ex-parte order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court, referencing a previous decision (Mahaveer Trading Company case), ruled that the petitioner should have been granted a personal hearing u/s 75(4) before any adverse decision was made. Consequently, the ex-parte order was quashed, and the officer was directed to provide the petitioner a fresh opportunity to respond, followed by a hearing and a reasoned order within two months. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

The Court Sets Aside Tax Assessment Order, Emphasizes Mandatory Personal Hearing Under U.P. GST Act

The Court addressed a challenge against an assessment order dated April 16, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner argued they were denied an opportunity for an oral hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The assessing authority marked "NA" in the columns for personal hearing details, contrary to natural justice principles and legal precedent established in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals. The revenue countered that the petitioner declined a hearing by marking "No" in the online response to the show-cause notice.

The Court held that providing an opportunity for a personal hearing is mandatory, irrespective of the petitioner’s response in the show-cause notice. It set aside the assessment order, emphasizing the importance of observing principles of natural justice, particularly in cases involving significant liabilities. The matter was remitted to the assessing authority for fresh proceedings with proper notice and hearing.

Petitioner Challenges GST Act Provision Affecting Bona Fide Purchasers; Interim Relief Granted

The petitioner challenges Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, 2017, arguing that it unfairly affects bona fide purchasers if the original supplier defaults on tax payments. The Court issued a notice, and the State, represented by Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, was granted time to file a reply. The petitioner sought and was allowed to add the Union of India as a party. The matter is scheduled for a hearing on 06.03.2025, with interim protection for the petitioner against coercive actions.

"Petitioner Challenges GST Act's Section 16(2)(c); Court Grants Interim Relief and Schedules Hearing for March 2025"

The petitioner challenges Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, 2017, arguing that it unfairly leaves a bona fide purchaser vulnerable to the supplier's tax default. The court has issued a notice of motion, with Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepting notice on behalf of the State and seeking time to file a reply by the next hearing date. The petitioner has been permitted to amend the memo of parties to include the Union of India. The matter is scheduled for hearing on March 6, 2025, and the court has directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in the interim.

The Court Grants Relief and Upholds Principles of Natural Justice: Former Director Challenges Unlawful Attachment of Demat Accounts.

The petitioner, a former non-executive director of Vistaar Logistic Pvt. Ltd., challenged the attachment and freezing of his Demat accounts due to alleged GST dues of the company. Having resigned on 18 March 2019, with the resignation accepted by the board on 20 March 2019 and duly reported to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs via Form DIR-12, the petitioner contended that the attachment in February and June 2024 under Section 83 of the MGST Act was unlawful. He argued that the action violated principles of natural justice since no proceedings were initiated against him and relied on the precedent set in Prasanna Karunakar Shetty vs. State of Maharashtra. The court found no evidence of proceedings under the relevant chapters of the MGST Act, deeming the attachment unjustified. The State Tax Department agreed to withdraw the attachment and issue notices under Section 89, ensuring the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing before any further action. Consequently, the court granted the relief sought, directing the respondents to inform depositories of the withdrawal within three working days, while emphasizing compliance with legal provisions and principles of natural justice for future actions.

The Court Dismisses Petition Challenging GST Show Cause Notice on Alcoholic Beverages, Allows Four Weeks for Response

The petitioner challenges a show cause notice issued by the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, claiming it lacks jurisdiction because it improperly proposes a tax on the supply of alcoholic beverages, which, under the CGST Act, should only be levied by state authorities. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Nankani, argues that a prior Advance Ruling confirms that amounts retained by bottlers are not subject to GST and asserts that the show cause notice is based on flawed assumptions regarding jurisdictional facts.

The respondents, represented by Mr. Mishra, argue that the petitioner’s contentions are based on unverified facts and that a factual investigation is necessary. The court states that the show cause notice does not prima facie impose GST on alcoholic liquor but raises questions regarding the classification of products and the payment of IGST. The court emphasizes that issues regarding jurisdiction and classification require thorough investigation and should be addressed through appropriate statutory remedies rather than through writ petitions. Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition, allowing the petitioner four weeks to respond to the show cause notice.

The Court Upholds GST Penalties, Dismisses Petition Alleging Procedural Violations and Misrepresentation

The petitioners challenged multiple orders and notices issued by GST authorities, claiming illegal imposition of penalties and procedural violations. They contended that the physical verification of goods confirmed the accuracy of tax declarations and that discrepancies were minor categorizations, not indicative of tax evasion. However, the authorities argued that significant discrepancies in description and valuation of goods pointed to deliberate misrepresentation and tax evasion. The Court upheld the authorities' findings, emphasizing the need for transparent inventory records and the substantial evidence supporting the penalties. The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the detention, tax demand, and penalties imposed under the GST laws.

Petitioner's Writ Application Dismissed: Appeal Against GST Registration Cancellation Rejected Due to Limitation

The rejection of their appeal against the cancellation of GST registration and (2) the appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 26.02.2024, which upheld the rejection due to a delay beyond the prescribed limitation period under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that their business was adversely affected by non-releasing of bills and medical reasons, contributing to the delayed filing. However, the appellate authority and the court upheld the rejection on the grounds of limitation, as the appeal was filed well beyond the statutory period of three months. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed, with no relief granted.

Dispute Over Timeliness of Odisha GST Order Leads to Quashing of Penalty

The validity of an order made u/s 129 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged the order dated 27th September, 2024, claiming it was beyond the prescribed period of seven days from the service of the penalty notice. The petitioner argued that the communication of the order was not timely, as the notice and subsequent action were inconsistent with the statutory timeline. Conversely, the revenue contended that the order was made on 26th September, 2024, and communicated on the same day via email, fulfilling the requirements of Section 169. However, discrepancies in communication and documentation led the court to conclude that the impugned order was indeed made beyond the prescribed seven-day period. Consequently, the order was set aside and quashed.

Legal Challenge to Arrest, Remand, and Incarceration Under CGST Act

The petition challenges the legality of the petitioner's arrest, remand, and incarceration under the CGST Act, alleging violations of constitutional rights and procedural lapses. The petitioner claims that his arrest was arbitrary, lacking proper adherence to legal requirements, particularly under Articles 22 and Section 69 of the CGST Act. The main points include insufficient grounds for arrest, procedural discrepancies, and unnecessary detention beyond 24 hours. The respondent defends the legality of the actions, arguing that statutory requirements were met, and sufficient information was provided to the petitioner through the Arrest Memo and remand application. The discussion contrasts this with other stringent statutes like PMLA and UAPA, highlighting the importance of written grounds for arrest. Recent Supreme Court rulings emphasize the necessity of providing written grounds to ensure a fair legal process and uphold individual rights.

The Court Quashes GST Orders Due to Improper Notice Upload, Orders Fresh Proceedings

This case pertains to a writ petition challenging the orders dated 24.11.2023 and 30.09.2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-10, Noida, u/s 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of these orders due to the notices being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' Tab on the GST Portal. The court noted the earlier case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., which addressed a similar issue, and ruled in favor of the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the case was remanded for fresh proceedings, ensuring proper notice and adherence to legal requirements.

The Court Quashes GST Orders for Lack of Personal Hearing, Directs Fresh Proceedings

The writ petition challenges two orders and a notice issued by respondent no.2 under the UPGST Act for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petition seeks to quash these orders and notice, arguing that no personal hearing was granted as per Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Applying the precedent from Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax, the court quashed the impugned orders and directed that the petitioner be granted a fresh opportunity to file a reply, followed by a hearing, within two months. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

The Court Directs Petitioner to Pursue Appeal Against O-I-O, Reserves Right to Challenge Notification Later

The petitioner challenges an Order-in-Original (O-I-O) dated 26 August 2024 and a notification dated 28 December 2023 extending the limitation period for passing a final order for the financial year 2019-2020. The court observed that while the petitioner has the right to appeal the O-I-O, the notification cannot be directly appealed. However, the petitioner can raise all other grounds, including those regarding IGST under appeal.

Referring to prior judgments, including Oberoi Constructions Limited vs. Union of India and similar petitions, the court decided not to entertain the petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy of appeal. The petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the notification later if no relief is secured through statutory remedies.

The petitioner agreed to file the appeal within four weeks, and the court instructed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its merits, disregarding any limitation issues. The petition is disposed of with no costs, and all parties are to act on an authenticated copy of the order.

The Court Restrains Final Decision on ?115 Crore Tax Dispute Pending Challenge to 2021 Appellate Order

The court considered a petition challenging a show cause notice issued to the petitioner for a short payment of tax amounting to Rs 115,58,67,623/-. The petitioner argued that the classification of its services under heading ‘9973’ had already been upheld by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) in a prior order dated 24 February 2021, which the department had not challenged. Despite this, the impugned notice insisted on classifying the services under heading ‘9988’.

The respondents stated they were unable to appeal the 2021 order due to the non-functionality of the GST tribunal. While the court allowed the respondents to adjudicate the show cause notice, it restrained them from issuing a final order until the 2021 appellate order is either set aside or stayed.

The petition was disposed of without costs, ensuring that respondents retain the right to challenge the 2021 order as per legal provisions.

"Petitioner Granted Liberty to Appeal O-I-O and Challenge Notifications if Statutory Remedies Fail: Court Clarifies Limitation Exemption"

The case involves a petitioner challenging the (O-I-O) and Notifications issued by the Respondent, which purport to extend the limitation period for finalizing orders related to the FY 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that no appeal could be filed against the Notifications, though IGST may be applicable under the Customs Tariff Act. While the petition against the Notifications was not entertained, the petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal against the O-I-O. Furthermore, should the petitioner not obtain relief through statutory remedies, they retain the right to challenge the Notifications. The court directed that the Appellate Authority must consider the appeal on merits, irrespective of limitation issues, as the petition was filed within the prescribed period.

The Court Quashes Order-in-Original Over Improper Notice Service, Directs Fresh Adjudication

The document outlines a legal case where the petitioner challenges a show cause notice and (O-I-O) on grounds of improper service, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner asserts that the notices were sent to incorrect addresses, while the respondents claim the notices were served properly at the stated addresses. The court finds inconsistencies in the addresses used and directs the respondents to serve future notices to the correct address provided by the petitioner, quashing the O-I-O and remanding the case for adjudication.

The Court Reinstates Appeal, Citing Inadvertent Error and Compliance with Pre-Deposit Requirement

The court heard arguments from both parties and issued a ruling. The petitioner had appealed an order but failed to indicate the required pre-deposit amount due to an inadvertent error. After realizing this, the petitioner complied by making the mandatory 10% pre-deposit. Despite this, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal based on the initial error.

The court found this decision excessively rigid, considering the error was corrected. It set aside the dismissal order, reinstated the appeal, and directed the appellate authority to consider the case on its merits. The ruling was made absolute without any cost order, and all parties are to act on the authenticated copy of the order.

The Bombay HC Declines to Interfere with Show Cause Notice; Petitioner Allowed to Respond within Four Weeks

The petitioner challenges a show cause notice dated December 9, 2021, alleging a violation of Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, arguing that a mandatory pre-show cause notice was not issued. The petitioner's counsel cites relevant case law indicating that such a notice was obligatory before the amendment of the rule in October 2020. In contrast, the respondent's counsel contends that issuing a pre-show cause notice is now at the discretion of the authorities, supported by prior correspondence in the case.

The court considers both sides but ultimately declines to interfere with the issuance of the show cause notice. It notes that the petitioner can raise their arguments in response to the notice, and emphasizes that challenges should be directed towards the authority that issued the notice. The court leaves the question of the necessity of a pre-show cause notice open for further consideration, instructing the petitioner to respond within four weeks, after which the authority must review the response on its merits. The petition is disposed of without costs.

The Bombay HC Rules on Refund Denial: Petitioner to Pay Costs for Reconsideration of Application

The court addressed a petition challenging an April 30, 2024, order that denied the petitioner a refund. The petitioner argued that the rejection breached natural justice, claiming no deficiency memo was issued to address procedural issues. The respondent countered that a show-cause notice was provided, which the petitioner failed to respond to or attend a hearing for. The court noted that, while a deficiency memo was not issued, the petitioner neglected to reply to the show-cause notice, undermining their claim. The court ordered the petitioner to pay costs of ?2,00,000 within four weeks. If paid, the refund application would be restored for processing, allowing the petitioner to address any deficiencies in accordance with the law. The court clarified it had not examined the merits of the refund application, leaving all parties' contentions open for consideration.

The Bombay HC Dismisses Review Petitions by GST Officials, Upholds Order for Interest Refund

The court considered Review Petition (St) No. 34303 of 2024, alongside Review Petition (St) No. 30291 of 2024, filed by the Additional Director General of GST Intelligence and the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise. They sought a review of a September 20, 2024, order requiring them to refund an interest amount to the Original Petitioner. The Review Petitioners argued that the court's statement regarding undisputed calculations should be revised due to a lack of verification time, and they cited a January 2014 letter regarding a Fixed Deposit renewal. However, the court found that no grounds for review were established since the Review Petitioners did not dispute the calculations or present the letter during the original hearing. Consequently, both review petitions were dismissed, maintaining the original order.

Bombay HC Quashes Appeal Dismissal, Upholds Natural Justice for Banking Petitioner

The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated March 28, 2024, and the rectification order dated July 31, 2024, issued by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) regarding a tax-related matter. The petitioner, engaged in banking, faced technical issues while appealing an earlier Order-in-Original from March 14, 2023. The appeal was dismissed due to alleged non-payment of a pre-deposit, lack of a condonation application, and absence of a board resolution. The petitioner argued these grounds were factually incorrect and that they were denied a hearing before the dismissal. The court found that the appellate authority violated principles of natural justice by not allowing the petitioner to address the dismissal grounds. Consequently, the court quashed the appeal dismissal and rectification orders, directing the Commissioner to provide a personal hearing and consider the petitioner’s arguments. The rule was disposed of without costs, keeping all rights and contentions open.