Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Radhika Agarwal VS Union of India...
Radhika Agarwal VS Union of India - 2025 2 Supreme 518 : To avoid arrest and attachment by the JMFC (Judicial Magistrate First Class) in the context of GST recovery proceedings initiated after non-response to GST recovery notices, the primary legal strategy is to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Anticipatory bail is available when there is a reasonable apprehension of arrest, and it is not necessary to wait for an FIR to be filed—only that there be clear facts and a reasonable basis for fearing arrest. The court may grant anticipatory bail, which may be conditional, to protect the individual''''s right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, the taxpayer must ensure that any arrest by the GST authorities is lawful: the Commissioner must have a ''''reasons to believe'''' that a non-bailable offence has been committed, and this must be explicitly recorded with reference to material and evidence. If the arrest is made without satisfying these conditions, it is illegal and can be challenged through judicial review. Furthermore, the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (F.No.GST/INV/Instructions/2022-2023) clarifies that recovery of tax under Section 79 of the CGST Act can only occur after a formal notice and adjudication order; no recovery can be made during search or investigation. Voluntary payment of tax through DRC-03 is permitted, but coercion or threats of arrest for such payment violate fundamental rights. Therefore, if the taxpayer is threatened with arrest during recovery proceedings, such conduct may constitute a violation of Article 20(3) and Article 21, and the taxpayer can seek relief from the court.Checking relevance for State of Gujarat VS Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer...
Checking relevance for Isha Beevi On Behalf Of The Minor Umaiben Beevi: T. K. Usman Musaliar VS Tax Recovery Officer And Additional P. A. To Collector, Quilon: Tax Recovery Officer, Quilon...
Checking relevance for Shikhar Chemicals VS State of Uttar Pradesh...
Checking relevance for Shikhar Chemicals VS State of Uttar Pradesh...
Checking relevance for Rajkot Municipal Corporation VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for Britannia Industries Limited VS Union Of India...
Checking relevance for Tvl. Sri Balaji Traders rep. by its Proprietor N.Govindarajalu vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Chidambaram -I...
Tvl. Sri Balaji Traders rep. by its Proprietor N.Govindarajalu vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Chidambaram -I - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 9037 : The court held that an ex parte order passed without affording an opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. In cases where notices are served only via the GST Portal under an unusual column (e.g., ''''View Additional Notices/Orders'''') and not in the standard ''''View Notices/Orders'''' section, such service may be ineffective, especially for illiterate or non-technically proficient taxpayers. The court emphasized that when online service fails to elicit a response, the tax authority must switch to a more effective mode of service, such as registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to ensure the taxpayer is properly notified. The court further directed that if the notice is not received due to reasons like ''''No such addressee'''' or ''''Incorrect address'''', the department should have proper endorsement, and if accepted, the acknowledgment serves as proof of service. Therefore, to avoid arrest and attachment by the JMFC, the taxpayer should challenge the recovery proceedings on the grounds that the original notice was not effectively served, particularly if it was uploaded in an unusual portal column and not received through a reliable method like RPAD. The taxpayer should also seek to have the ex parte order set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with proper notice and opportunity to be heard.Checking relevance for Shree Dhanlaxmi Metal Industries Through Its Proprietor Kapil Hukmichand Kothari VS State Of Gujarat...
Shree Dhanlaxmi Metal Industries Through Its Proprietor Kapil Hukmichand Kothari VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1337 : To avoid arrest and attachment by the JMFC in cases where GST recovery notices were issued but not replied to, the taxpayer must file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within the prescribed time limit. Upon filing such an appeal, the taxpayer is required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount (as per sub-section (6) of Section 107) and the full amount admitted in the notice. Once this payment is made, recovery proceedings for the balance amount are deemed to be stayed under sub-section (7) of Section 107. This automatic stay prevents further enforcement actions, including provisional attachment or recovery proceedings by the JMFC, until the appeal is decided. Additionally, if a provisional attachment order has already been passed, it must cease to subsist once the final assessment order under Section 74 is passed, as the power to issue such attachment is only valid during the pendency of proceedings. Therefore, the key strategy is to promptly file an appeal and comply with the payment requirements under Section 107 to trigger the statutory stay on recovery proceedings.Checking relevance for Sanjay Mukeshbhai Patel VS State Of Gujarat...
Checking relevance for Sushant Steel Through Proprietor Vinodkumar Nagina Gupta VS State Of Gujarat...
Sushant Steel Through Proprietor Vinodkumar Nagina Gupta VS State Of Gujarat - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 315 : Under Section 107(7) of the CGST Act, 2017, if an appeal is filed with the pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount are deemed to be stayed. This stay prevents the JMFC from proceeding with arrest or attachment of property. The stay is effective from the date of filing the appeal with the required pre-deposit, and continues until the appeal is finally decided. Therefore, to avoid arrest and attachment by the JMFC, the taxpayer should file an appeal before the Appellate Authority and pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit. This triggers the deeming fiction under Section 107(7), which automatically stays recovery proceedings for the balance amount.Checking relevance for Union Of India VS Chaya Ghoshal...
Checking relevance for Calcutta Gujrat Education Society s VS Calcutta Municipal Corporation...
Calcutta Gujrat Education Society s VS Calcutta Municipal Corporation - 2003 7 Supreme 292 : Under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, tenants, sub-tenants, and occupiers are entitled to written notices for assessment, revision, or amendment of consolidated property tax. They have a right to participate in the assessment process by filing returns and objections. Even if the landlord fails to respond to GST recovery notices, the tenant must be vigilant and can raise objections based on valid grounds. The tenant has an independent right to appeal against the assessment by depositing the portion of tax found leviable and recoverable from them. The non-issuance or non-service of notices does not invalidate the assessment unless serious prejudice is proven. To avoid arrest and attachment by the JMFC, the tenant should immediately file an appeal with the competent authority by depositing the applicable portion of the tax demand, raise objections based on procedural defects or substantive errors, and seek legal remedies through the appellate process before coercive recovery proceedings proceed.
