2023-TIOL-1746-HC-DEL-GST
Aaira Batteries Vs Pr.Commissioner of Department of Trade Taxes Govt. of NCT of Delhi
GST - Petitioner's registration was cancelled, therefore, the present petition - Petitioner submits that although an allegation was made that they had issued invoices and bills without supply of goods, in violation of the provisions of the Act, the show-cause notice did not mention any specific invoices or bills; that it also did not provide any other details such as the period during which such invoices were issued, which could identify the bills alleged to have been raised without supply of goods; that the petitioner was called upon to appear before the concerned Officer, the aforesaid show cause notice neither indicated the venue nor the date and time when the petitioner was required to appear; that the said order did not specify any reasons for cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration except mentioning that no reply to the aforementioned show-cause notice was received.
Held : Bench is of the view that the said show-cause notice is bereft of the necessary particulars so as to enable the petitioner to respond to the same with any clarity; that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard; that the order is also bereft of any reasons - Impugned order cancelling the petitioner's registration was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is, thus, liable to be set aside - Although the petitioner has not approached this Court immediately after receiving the impugned order, Bench does not find that the delay (of more than two years) is pernicious to the petitioner's claim for restoration of the GST registration - Order set aside and petition is allowed: High Court [para 14, 15, 17]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1745-HC-DEL-GST
Delhi Metal Company Vs Pr.CGST
GST - Petitioner prays that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner's application for cancellation of its registration as it had closed down its business, with effect from 12.04.2023 - Respondent raised a query seeking additional information/clarification, in respect of the petitioner's request and by an order rejected the request for cancellation - Once again an application was made and again its was rejected, therefore, the petition - When the petition was listed on 10.11.2023, the Court in its order noted the respondents submission that currently an investigation is being conducted against the petitioner on account of various suspicious activities and therefore, the petitioner's application has not been processed - Court, therefore, queried as to under which provision of law, can the respondent compel a taxpayer to maintain its GST registration after the taxpayer has closed down its business and seeks cancellation of its GST registration and to this query, the Revenue counsel sought time to respond - During the hearing, the counsel for Revenue submitted that the petitioner has not joined the investigation and ought to be directed to do so - Petitioner assured that they would join the investigation immediately.
Held : Bench considers it apposite to dispose of the writ petition by directing that the respondent shall take steps for cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration in terms of its application - It is also clarified that the respondents are not precluded from taking any other steps, if there is any statutory violation on the part of the petitioner: High Court [para 14, 15]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1744-HC-KAR-GST
Hatsoff Helicopter Training Pvt Ltd Vs State of Karnataka
GST - Petitioner has impugned the second respondent's order-in-original dated 27.12.2022 and the third respondent's order-in-appeal dated 30.09.2023 with a prayer for quashing the recovery notice dated 17.10.2023.
Held : If the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the GSTIN of the recipient organization was not furnished initially, is able to furnish the same later and demonstrate that its services of imparting training to the helicopter pilots was totally sponsored and borne by the Central Government or the State Government, the third respondent will have to decide whether the exemption vide Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 could be denied, these aspects will have to be considered for complete adjudication - Impugned order-in-appeal is quashed and the proceedings are restored to the third respondent to reconsider the merits of the petitioner's response - Recovery notice quashed: High Court [para 10]
- Petition partly allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1743-HC-DEL-GST
Klabattu Metals Vs DG of GST Intelligence
GST - Petitioner's bank accounts were provisionally attached u/s 83 of the Act, 2017 - Petitioner submits that no notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act has been received which would mark the commencement of such proceedings and, therefore, ex facie, the impugned order of provisional attachment is untenable, and is liable to be set aside - Counsel for the Revenue states that the petitioner has been called by the Commissioner concerned to hear objections - Petitioner disputes that any such objections have been filed by them.
Held : On a pointed query as to under which provision has the Commissioner called the petitioner, Counsel for Revenue submits that the petitioner has been called under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - The said contention is ex facie unmerited as Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules only contemplates hearing of the petitioner in respect of the objections filed by such taxpayer and in the present case, the petitioner has not filed any objection - Counter affidavit to be filed within one week - Respondent is directed to produce the original file before this court on the next date of hearing on 23.01.2024: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1742-HC-RAJ-GST
Nestle India Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner submits that the determination made is contrary to the language of the Section 65(7) of the Act, 2017 inasmuch as if the said determination is accepted, the same would result in issuance of multiple show-cause notices based on one single audit report - Petitioner further submits that only one notice based on the audit report as per the monetary limit involved in the said show-cause notice could be issued and as in the present case, notice dated 17.08.2023 had already been issued by the Superintendent, the notice dated 25.09.2023 could not be issued by the Additional Commissioner, CGST - Respondents prays for time to file reply to the writ petition and made submissions that the determination made on the jurisdiction by the authority is justified as the language of Section 65(7) of the Act cannot be confined to issuance of one single notice and that based on each paragraph of the audit report, a separate show-cause notice by the Jurisdictional Officer can be issued.
Held: Matter requires consideration - In the meanwhile and till further order, proceedings pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 25.09.2023 before the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Jaipur shall remain stayed - Matter listed on 30.01.2024: High Court [para 7, 9]
- Interim order passed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1741-HC-KAR-GST
Hatsoff Helicopter Training Pvt Ltd Vs State of Karnataka
GST - Petitioner has impugned the second respondent's order-in-original dated 30.01.2023 and the third respondent's order-in-appeal dated 30.09.2023 with a prayer for quashing the recovery notice dated 17.10.2023.
Held: If the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the GSTIN of the recipient organization was not furnished initially, is able to furnish the same later and demonstrate that its services of imparting training to the helicopter pilots was totally sponsored and borne by the Central Government or the State Government, the third respondent will have to decide whether the exemption vide Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 could be denied, these aspects will have to be considered for complete adjudication - Impugned order-in-appeal is quashed and the proceedings are restored to the third respondent to reconsider the merits of the petitioner's response - Recovery notice quashed: High Court [para 10]
- Petition partly allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT |
