GOPINATH P.
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is wholly owned by the Government of Kerala. It is primarily engaged in the business of conducting chits. It is before this Court challenging Ext.P1 show cause notice dated 21-04-2022 interaliacalling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why Goods and Services Tax (GST) amounting to Rs.61,55,21,173/-(Rupees Sixty-one Crores Fifty-five Lakhs Twenty-one Thousand one Hundred Seventy-three only) should not be demanded and recovered under the provisions of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017, (CGST/SGST Acts), as to why interest should not be demanded on the aforesaid sum and as to why penalty should not be imposed in terms of the provisions contained in the CGST/SGST Acts for violation of the provisions of the law.
2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 show cause notice is clearly without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though Exts. P5 to P8 notifications are challenged, it is submitted for the petitioner that the challenge to those n
Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner
Commissioner of Service Tax and Others v. Bhayana Builders (Pvt) Ltd. and Others; (2018) 3 SCC 782
Pratibha Processors and Ors v. Union of India and Ors; (1996) 11 SCC 101
Baroda Electric Meters Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise; (1997) 11 SCC 697
Interest collected by chit foremen from defaulting subscribers is not subject to GST as it does not represent consideration for supply of services.
Interest and penalties for delayed subscription payments in chit funds are not subject to GST, as they do not qualify as service fees under the Chit Fund Act and associated rules.
Consumer forums have jurisdiction in disputes involving chit fund operators, and failure to fulfill obligations pertains to deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Composite show-cause notices covering multiple financial years under CGST/KGST Act are illegal as assessments must pertain to individual years, respecting statutory limitations and ensuring natural j....
Power of National Commission to review under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in impugned order.
The court affirmed that an unlawful tax collection obligates the government to refund with interest, reinforcing the principle of unjust enrichment and constitutional mandates under Article 265.
Transactional value under Section 15 of the GST Act must be the decisive element for tax liability, and arbitrary assumptions regarding pricing or profit margins are impermissible.
A plaintiff cannot file a suit against an unregistered chit fund for recovery of money, highlighting the necessity of a valid Board resolution for instituting a suit on behalf of a company.
The court upheld the validity of show cause notices issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, affirming the authority of the officers and the necessity for the petitioner to respond to the....
Bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act has no application to any suit or other proceedings filed before the civil court, in respect of dispute relating to any chit start....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.