When can an Order be considered "Non-Speaking" or "Non-Reasoned" Order?
When an Order becomes "Cryptic" Order?
First #Appeallate Authority passed an Order of 5 pages affirming cancellation of #GST#registration but out of those 5 pages, 4 pages were copy paste of Memo of Appeal.
Facts and Timelines:
10-Feb-2021: Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on the ground that he was not functioning/not existing at the principal place of business.
Notice remained unreplied.
06-Mar-2021: The cancellation order was passed by the Assessing Authority.
Assessee preferred statutory appeal against the cancellation order.
It is not in dispute to the Department that GST return was filed by the Assessee right from its implementation since July, 2017 till November, 2020.
27-Oct-2021: Appellate Authority rejects the Appeal.
Five (5) pages rejection Order was passed out of which Four (4) pages were of the entire ground taken in the memo of appeal by the Assessee.
In one paragraph, the appellate authority has recorded its reasoning stating therein that on the date, when the survey was conduced, the Assessee was not running business on the place, which was informed to the Taxing Department when the registration was done.
Apart from this fact, no other finding has been recorded by the first Appellate Authority on the ground which have been taken in the appeal.
High Court held:
The first Appellate Authority once it had taken note about the rent agreement, should have taken into consideration that the place of business of the Assessee has changed and an opportunity should have been given to the Assessee to place all material before it and
The authority should have recorded findings before rejecting the appeal confirming the order of cancellation of registration.
The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal on merits and deal with each and every grounds so taken in the appeal.
Title: Sharp Print Ways vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad High Court
Citation: Writ Tax No. - 543 of 2022
Dated: 09-Jan-2023
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whether a Person who opts to make a payment as per Section 129(1)(a) to get his Conveyance/Goods released (which were earlier detained and Seized U/s 129) is deprived of his right to file appeal U/s 107 against proceedings?
Kerala High Court held:
✅Voluntary payment does not deprive person of Appeal ✅ Whether or not a person opts to make payment U/s 129(1)(a) or provide security U/s 129(1)(c) it is the responsibility of the Officer to pass an Order U/s 129(3)
and upload Summary of Order/Demand in the Form MOV-07.
Title: Hindustan Steel and Cement vs Asstt. STO
Court: Kerala High Court
Citation: Writ Petition (C) No 17454/2022
Dated: 18-Jul-2022
The ruling states that the applicant has used the word “accessory” along with sharpener and eraser which means they are not essential or integral to pencil but they are useful and therefore, they are not naturally bundled.
The AAR
notes that the argument of the applicant that these items are generally sold together in this industry is not acceptable because they are also sold independently and it is a marketing technique to increase sale of sharpener and eraser.