Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tax Collector Penalized for Failing to Remit Collected Taxes, Supreme Court Affirms Penalty Under Section 73(11)</h1> <h3>M/s. GLOBAL PLASTO WARES Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER STATE GST DEPARTMENT THRISSUR</h3> Tax dispute involving penalty assessment under CGST/SGST Act. SC upheld penalty under Section 73(11) against appellant who collected but did not remit ... Imposition of a penalty under Section 73(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) and State Goods and Services Tax Act - It was the case of the appellant that the show cause notice did not specifically refer to the provisions of Section 73(11) of the CGST/SGST Act but had proceeded on the assumption that what the appellant was liable to was only a penalty under Section 73(8) of the CGST/SGST Act, which, on the facts of the instant case, did not apply. HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the differential tax amount demanded from the appellant pertains to transactions covered by invoices in which the appellant had clearly shown the price of the goods and also the tax amounts due from the customer concerned. While paying the tax due to the State along with the returns filed by the appellant, the appellant had failed to include the tax amounts covered by the invoices considered by the Assessing Authority for the issuance of the demand for differential tax, and it was under those circumstances that the demand for differential tax came to be made as against the appellant. While it may be a fact that Ext.P1 notice issued to the appellant did not specifically refer to Section 73(11) of the CGST/SGST Act, when we find that, on the admitted facts, the appellant had not paid tax due to the State despite collecting the same from its customers, then, as per the statutory provisions, it is the provision of Section 73(11) and not the provision of Section 73(8) that will apply to determine the penal liability of the appellant. The Assessing Authority, having found that as per the provisions of Section 73(11) of the CGST/SGST Act, the appellant would be liable to penalty in view of the non-payment of tax collected from its customers, there are no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge that upheld the order of the Assessing Authority laying down the correct position in law. Merely because the show cause notice issued to the appellant did not refer to a particular statutory provision, the appellant cannot be said to have been prejudiced when the facts leading to the invocation of the statutory provision concerned were admitted by the appellant. Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions presented and considered in this judgment are as follows:Whether the imposition of a penalty under Section 73(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) and State Goods and Services Tax Act (SGST Act) was justified when the show cause notice initially referred only to a possible penalty under Section 73(9).Whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to the lack of specific reference to Section 73(11) in the show cause notice.Whether the appellant was prejudiced by the imposition of a penalty under a statutory provision not explicitly mentioned in the notice.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Justification of Penalty under Section 73(11)Relevant legal framework and precedents: The relevant provisions are Sections 73(8), 73(9), and 73(11) of the CGST/SGST Act. Section 73(11) specifically deals with the penalty for non-payment of tax collected from customers.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court interpreted that the penalty under Section 73(11) was applicable because the appellant had collected tax from its customers but failed to remit it to the state. The court emphasized that the statutory provision applicable is determined by the factual matrix of the case, not merely by the references in the show cause notice.Key evidence and findings: The evidence showed that the appellant had issued invoices indicating tax amounts but did not include these amounts in the tax returns filed, leading to a demand for differential tax.Application of law to facts: The court applied Section 73(11) based on the fact that the appellant collected tax but did not pay it to the state, thus justifying the penalty under this section.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the penalty could not be imposed under Section 73(11) since the show cause notice did not mention it. The court rejected this argument, stating that the absence of a specific statutory reference in the notice did not prejudice the appellant, given the admitted facts.Conclusions: The court concluded that the imposition of the penalty under Section 73(11) was justified and that the learned Single Judge's decision to uphold the penalty was correct.Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Natural JusticeRelevant legal framework and precedents: Principles of natural justice require that parties be informed of the case against them and have an opportunity to respond.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court reasoned that the principles of natural justice were not violated because the appellant was aware of the factual basis for the penalty, even if the specific statutory provision was not mentioned in the notice.Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the appellant admitted to the facts that led to the invocation of Section 73(11), and thus, there was no procedural unfairness.Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles of natural justice, determining that the appellant had adequate notice of the factual allegations and an opportunity to contest them, satisfying the requirements of fairness.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's argument that the lack of specific statutory reference violated natural justice was dismissed as unpersuasive, given the appellant's admission of the underlying facts.Conclusions: The court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice, and the appellant was not prejudiced by the lack of specific statutory reference in the notice.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'Merely because the show cause notice issued to the appellant did not refer to a particular statutory provision, the appellant cannot be said to have been prejudiced when the facts leading to the invocation of the statutory provision concerned were admitted by the appellant.'Core principles established: The applicability of a statutory provision for penalty is determined by the factual circumstances, not merely by the wording of the notice. The principles of natural justice are satisfied if the party is aware of the factual basis for the action and has an opportunity to respond.Final determinations on each issue: The court upheld the penalty under Section 73(11) of the CGST/SGST Act, finding no violation of natural justice and concluding that the appellant was not prejudiced by the lack of specific statutory reference in the show cause notice.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found