TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Madras HC Overturns Orders-in-Appeal 43 & 95/2021, Remands Case for New Decision Citing Eveready Precedent.</h1> <h3>M/s. Kushal's Retail Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Kalpesh Gulechha Versus Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), Chennai, Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Chennai</h3> The Madras HC set aside the Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 43 and 95 of 2021, which rejected the petitioner's appeal against the Order-in-Original No. RFD 06. The ... Challenge to order u/s 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - appeal to GST Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Since, the order has been passed by the 1st respondent as an Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, an appeal lies before the GST Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the Tribunal is yet to be constituted, although it has been notified. The reading of the impugned order indicates that it is based on the Circular No.135/05-2020-GST dated 31.03.2020. While dealing with an identical situation, this Court had taken note of the decisions of the Guwahati High Court, Calcutta High Court, Rajasthan High Court and Delhi High Court, wherein these Courts have struck down the above circular and passed order in M/S. EVEREADY SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR S. CHANDRAKUMAR. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, DINDIGUL [2024 (7) TMI 1160 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] by remitting the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order de-novo, in the light of the striking down of the above circular. The case remanded back to the 2nd respondent to pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order - petition allowed by way of remand. The Madras High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice C. Saravanan, addressed writ petitions challenging the Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 43 and 95 of 2021, which rejected the petitioner's appeal against Order-in-Original No. RFD 06 dated 30.10.2021. The appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, issued these orders, and an appeal lies with the GST Tribunal under Section 112 of the same Act. However, the Tribunal has not yet been constituted. The impugned orders were based on Circular No. 135/05-2020-GST dated 31.03.2020, which has been struck down by several High Courts, including the Guwahati, Calcutta, Rajasthan, and Delhi High Courts. Citing the precedent set in M/s. Eveready Spinning Mills Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, the Court decided to set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the 2nd respondent for a fresh decision on merits within three months. The writ petitions were allowed by way of remand, and no costs were imposed. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
