Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
The opportunity of hearing may be afforded either by way of allowing the petitioners to make any written representation for their case or it may be by allowing personal hearing: Hon’ble Calcutta High Court
In M/s Ram Prasad Ganga Prasad & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Beadon Street Charge & Ors., WPA 20138 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that It is a settled law that opportunity of hearing may be afforded either by way of allowing the petitioners to make any written representation for their case or it may be by allowing personal hearing and in this case petitioners were allowed to make written representation/objection and when petitioners have not asked for personal hearing and petitioners have not been able to show any provision of relevant laws mandating the authority to give personal hearing, question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise in this case. It is relevant to note that Section 75(4) of the GST Act simply says about hearing and not about personal hearing.
It is evident that while preferring an appeal before First Appellate Authority 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising for the said period is required to be deposited: Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court
In M/s Shri Shantanu Steel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., WPT No. 251 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that it is evident that while preferring an appeal against the order passed by respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Circle-4, Durg, 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising for the said period was required to be deposited. However, the petitioner has admittedly not complied with the same and in view thereof, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned…… The liberty is granted to the petitioner that if he moves an appropriate application before the appellate authority, seeking for the deposition of said 10% of the remaining tax amount, in strict compliance with the provisions referred hereinabove, the said authority shall decide the same in accordance with the law.
Allowed to pay the tax dues in the instalments: Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court
In M/s Lakshminarayana Cottons v. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (GST), Kurnool and Ors., Writ Petition No. 18679 of 2021, the petitioner was doing business in cotton and was successfully conducting the same, but due to loss incurred, the taxes for the period from December, 2017 to December, 2018 could not be paid which was compounded due to non-receipt of incentives by the State Government. The petitioner is still not functioning due to the prevailing circumstances and cancellation of his registration. Hon’ble HC held that for serving the larger ends of justice and balancing equities, more so, in view of the fact that, if the industry starts functioning, it would be in a position, both to satisfy the demand of the respondents as also generate business and to pay future taxes and equally give employment to the workers, the Court is inclined to allow the petitioner to pay the amount as would be quantified by the respondents in ten (10) equal instalments.
There is a clear legal mandate that if an application for refund is to be rejected, the same can only be done after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard: Hon’ble Telangana High Court
In M/s Infosys Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner of SGST (STU-3), Hyderabad, W.P. Nos. 527 & 616 of 2020, Hon’ble HC held that there is a clear legal mandate that if an application for refund is to be rejected, the same can only be done after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. When the law requires that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, the same cannot be substituted by telephonic conversations and exchange of e-mails. Hence, breach of PNJ – petition allowed – directed the respondent-department to hear afresh applications of the petitioner for refund within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondent after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
Once the petitioner has satisfied the requirement of the law for providing PAN, Aadhar and also house tax receipt/property receipt then the authority should not have insisted on submission of receipt of electricity bill: Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
In Ranjana Singh v. Commissioner of State Tax and Ors., Writ Tax No. 1084 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that the petitioner has submitted the explanation with regard to the nature or possession of the business premises as the owner and also submitted the house tax receipt in compliance with the show cause notice. But the authorities below without whispering any word or assigning any reason had rejected the application for non-specifying possession of the business premises and insisted on submission of electricity bill……….. Once the petitioner has satisfied the requirement of the law for providing PAN, Aadhar and also house tax receipt/property receipt then the authority should not have insisted on submission of receipt of electricity bill…. It is clear from the records that all the documents as required under the Act and law as well as in compliance to the show cause notice were furnished by the petitioner and without pointing out any defect or shortcoming therein, the application should not have been rejected. The writ petition is allowed with a cost of ₹ 15,000/-.
Bail granted in the following cases:
– The applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail – M/s V.K. Traders v. UOI and Ors., Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CR.P.C. No. – 19059 of 2021 (Hon’ble Allahabad HC)
– Modification of the order to reduce the amount of bail bond – M/s Varinder Singh v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Punjab, CRM-M-31496-2021 (O&M) (Hon’ble P&H HC)
– Allegation – flouting bogus firms and showing fake billings and transactions in order to draw the refund of the GST payment, and thereby had caused a loss to the tune of ₹ 8.95 crores to the State Government – Bail Granted – Balwinder Singh v. State Tax Officer, CRM-M-16421-2021 (Hon’ble P&H HC)
– Allegation – fake input tax credit invoices, without actual supply of goods – fraudulent and irregular input tax credit affecting collection of Goods and Services Tax – without assessment of amount involved, search and seizure conducted – Sections 16 & 132 (1) (b) & (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Bail Granted – Rohan Tanna v. UOI and Ors., MCRC No.6331 of 2021 MCRC No.6692 of 2021, (Hon’ble Chhattisgarh HC)
The author may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org*