Tag Archives: #allahabadhighcourt#GST#taxes#bail

CASE TITLE: M/S Tikona Infinet Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and Another [Writ Tax No. – 859 Of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 25.7.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon’ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Nishant Mishra,Vedika Nath

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: C.S.C.

INTRODUCTION

The Allahabad High Court stated that the taxpayer should have waited for the relevant form to become available on the GST portal instead of resorting to an unlawful adjustment. The court, led by Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, emphasized that the petitioner should have raised a proper complaint on the GST portal help-desk and patiently waited for the appropriate Form to be accessible on the portal, rather than making unauthorized adjustments using Form GSTR-3B of both the transferor and transferee companies. The court also noted that a mere shortage of working capital cannot serve as a justification to circumvent the legal procedures established by the law.

FACTS:

The petitioner is a registered company providing internet services across India, including in the State of U.P. They entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Tikona Digital Network (TDA), through which the business was transferred to them. TDA had accumulated an unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) balance of over Rs. 3,131,68,997. The petitioner attempted to transfer the remaining ITC, as allowed under Section 18(3) of the GST Act and Rule 41 of the CGST Rules, 2017. However, the functionality for filing Form IT-02 on the common portal was not available, despite the matter being communicated to the jurisdictional Assessing Authority without receiving any response. Due to severe working capital issues, the petitioner manually accepted and availed the ITC. After five years, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice demanding the differential ITC of Rs. 2,88,35,905.60, along with interest and penalty. The petitioner responded with a detailed reply, requesting the withdrawal of the show cause notice. Nonetheless, the department proceeded to pass the order confirming the demand, allegedly without considering the petitioner’s reply.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

The court observed that the department’s rejection of the assessee’s claim based on the unavailability of the GST common portal online was not justifiable. Consequently, the court nullified the previous order and granted the department the freedom to issue a new order, considering the petitioner’s objections and providing them with a fair hearing, following all legal procedures diligently.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click here to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

 

Title: Ravindernath Sharma v. Union of India

Dated: 10th July, 2023

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 26376 of 2023 

CORAM: Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

 

Introduction.

 

The applicant, who was unlawfully detained, did not get a notice for GST recovery, hence the Allahabad High Court granted release on that basis. Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori’s bench has noted that the petitioner was detained without providing any evidence to support the detention or any satisfaction to support the detention.

 

Analysis.

 

The applicant claimed that he had been detained without providing any justification for his detention in accordance with the Code. The accused offences carry a maximum 5-year prison sentence. The applicant has been unlawfully detained, and no notice for the recovery of the GST has been issued against him.

 

The applicant was granted bail by the court with a number of restrictions.

 

First of all, the applicant is forbidden from directly or indirectly offering any enticement, threat, or promise to anybody who is aware of the case’s facts in an effort to persuade them not to reveal those facts to the court or to any police officer or prevent them from tampering with the evidence.

 

Second, the petitioner must refrain from intimidating or applying pressure to the prosecution witnesses.

 

Thirdly, on the days set for the beginning of the case, the formulation of the charge, and the recording of the statement pursuant to Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant shall continue to appear personally before the trial court.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by- Varada Hawaldar

Click to view judgement