Back
M. I. ARUN
Vigneshwara Transport Company – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Petitioner is involved in the transportation of goods and was registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the CGST Act' for short) and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the KGST Act' for short). On the ground that the petitioner along with several other persons have indulged in purchase of arecanut from several persons and supplying the same to various Gutkha manufacturers without payment of appropriate applicable GST, investigation has been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the GST Act, which has culminated in the impugned show cause notice dated 11.04.2023 being issued from respondent no.1 (vide Annexure-G to the writ petition). Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other direction or writ for quashing the show cause notice dated 11/04/2023 issued by the Respondent 3 as showed in Annexure-G vide bearing no.GEXCOM/AC/FU/1423/2021-AE-OIO-COMMR-CGST-Bengaluru (NW) issued by the Respon
A show cause notice issued under the GST Act based on an investigation by an improper officer is invalid and must be set aside.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of a show cause notice after the specified period does not invalidate the notice, and the court may reserve all rights and conten....
GST authorities must follow procedural safeguards under the GST Act for prosecution, including obtaining prior sanction, and cannot invoke IPC provisions without adhering to GST procedures.
The sufficiency of the reasons for forming a belief under Section 67 of the CGST Act is not subject to judicial review as long as there is material or information providing a rational basis for the b....
The jurisdiction of CAG is limited to government departments, and show cause notices based on its audit findings are valid unless issued improperly.
The court established that confiscation under Section 130 requires prior action under Section 129, and adherence to natural justice is essential in such proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the search authorization was deemed legal, the deposit made by the petitioner was found to be under duress and not voluntary, emphasizin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
