Latest news with #GujaratHighCourt
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
Four years after Surendrangar man, minor son were killed in ‘fake encounter', FIR lodged against 7 police personnel
Following three years of legal battle by a teenaged girl against an alleged fake encounter in which her father and minor brother were killed in Gujarat's Surendranagar four years ago, an FIR was filed against a sub-inspector and six other police personnel in the case. Hanifaben Jatmalek, the mother-in-law of the deceased Hanifkhan Jatmalek and the legal guardian of his daughter Suhana, lodged an FIR against the seven accused at the Bajana police station on Thursday. It is the same police station where the accused, including police sub inspector (PSI) Virendrasinh Jadeja, Head Constables Rajeshbhai Mithapara and Kirit Solanki; and Constables Shaileshbhai Kathevadiya, Digvijaysinh Zala, Prahladbhai Charmata and Manubhai Fatepara, were posted at the time of incident in 2021. The accused were booked under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 302 (murder) and 114 (abettor present when crime is committed). Suhana told The Indian Express, 'After a long legal battle, we are now satisfied that an offence has been registered against the accused police officers who had, in a fake encounter, killed my father and my brother. I will get justice only if these police personnel are strictly punished, so that neither them nor any other policeman dare to take such action in the future.' In 2022, Suhana, who was 13 at the time, filed a writ petition with the Gujarat High Court, requesting legal action against the accused policemen. The quorum of Gujarat HC Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, on July 26, 2024, passed and order, stating, 'The petitioner is at liberty to approach the court of concerned Magistrate, by moving an application under section 156(3), of Code of Criminal Procedure. On such an application being filed along with the copy of this order, the concerned Magistrate shall make necessary inquiry and do the needful strictly, in accordance with law.' Suhana had filed an application with Surendranagar district Dhrangadhra Patdi JMFC (Judicial Magistrate First Class) on April 17 this year. Judge R R Zimba passed an order stating that Bajana police should register an offence against the seven police personnel. 'The investigation should be done by a Deputy Superintendent of Police rank officer, and a report should be submitted to the court,' the court had added. According to Hanifaben's FIR, 'On November 6, 2021, Bajana police sub-inspector Jadeja and six other policemen came to our house in Gediya village in private vehicles and dressed in plain clothes. They posed as police personnel, caught hold of Hanifkhan and made him sit in the car. At this, Hanif's 14-year-old son Madeen came out of the house and tried to prevent them (since they were dressed as civilians) from taking his father away. PSI Jadeja took out a revolver from his pocket and shot Madeen on the chest at point-blank range, killing him on the spot. As Hanifkhan struggled with police staffers, he was also shot dead by PSI Jadeja.' The FIR further stated, 'As the neighbours gathered, the cops left the spot and, later, lodged a police complaint of attempt to murder against Hanifkhan's family members. The purpose was to hide the encounter. Even after this incident, the accused police personnel continued to threaten us.' Surendranagar district's Deputy Superintendent of police J D Purohit, who is the investigating officer in the case, said, 'I have received the charge of the investigation today. I will call the complainant and the witnesses in the case and record their statements. I will also check the status of the complaint lodged by PSI Jadeja against the family members and relatives of Hanifkhan. The seven accused police personnel will be called and their statements will be recorded… If the policemen are found guilty in my investigation, we will arrest them. It will take around two to three months for the investigation to conclude.'
India Today
23-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Razing an illegal storm
A security sweep sounds like a good idea after a terror outrage. One came four days after Pahalgam. Targets? Over 6,500 people alleged to be illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in faraway Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Surat. Two days after Gujarat Police swooped down for this mass detention, it joined the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) to also demolish 12,500 shanties around Chandola Lake, one of the city's Muslim ghettos. Some 25,000 inhabitants were displaced as a total of 400,000 sq. metres was cleared. The demolition, done without notice, wasn't stayed by the Gujarat High Court on the grounds that this was government land.
Time of India
22-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Ease in GST appeal: Now you can make pre-deposit payment for through input tax credit, rules Supreme Court, know who will benefit from it
Brief of this case Live Events February 28, 2018 to January 14, 2021: The GST registered taxpayer who was an export company was availing refund of IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) until the time Finance Act, 2021 removed this benefit. IGST is collected when interstate supply of goods or services have occurred. The GST registered taxpayer who was an export company was availing refund of IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) until the time Finance Act, 2021 removed this benefit. IGST is collected when interstate supply of goods or services have occurred. 2020: Government issued them a tax demand notice for claiming refund of IGST. Government issued them a tax demand notice for claiming refund of IGST. February 9, 2021 to December 26, 2022: The company paid Rs 3.36 crore as pre-deposit amount for filing an appeal against this order via GST DRC-03 form. April 25, 2023: Government issued another notice to this company and asked them not to use their input tax credit for paying the GST appeal case's pre-payment. Consequently the company had to reverse the Rs 3.36 crore ITC claim and pay the pre-deposit using cash ledger. Government issued another notice to this company and asked them not to use their input tax credit for paying the GST appeal case's pre-payment. Consequently the company had to reverse the Rs 3.36 crore ITC claim and pay the pre-deposit using cash ledger. 2023: Appeal against this 2nd tax notice issued on April 25, 2023 was filed in Gujarat High Court. Can GST appeal pre-payment be made using input tax credit? Gujarat High Court answers What legal reasoning did Gujarat High Court use that allowed ITC to be used for GST appeal pre-payments? Sub-section (4) of Section 49 provides that the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger may be used for making any payment towards output tax under the MGST Act or IGST Act subject to certain restrictions or conditions that may be prescribed. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 86 of MGST Rules provides for debiting of the Electronic Credit Ledger to the extent of discharge of any liability in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 of the MGST Act. Further, output tax in relation to a taxable person is defined in Clause (82) of Section 2 of MGST Act as the tax chargeable on taxable supply of goods or services or both but excludes tax payable on reverse charge mechanism. Therefore, any payment towards output tax, whether self- assessed in the return can be made by utilisation of the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Hence, a party can pay 10% of the disputed Tax either using the amount available in the Electronic Cash Ledger or the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Gujarat High Court final judgement What is the significance of this order for GST registered taxpayers? Why is the pre-deposit amount required for filing an GST appeal case? Does GSTN need to issue an advisory now about using ITC to pay pre-deposit for litigation cases? In what may be termed as an important judgement for Goods and Services Tax (GST) registered taxpayers, the Supreme Court on May 19, 2025, allowed using input tax credit (ITC) to pay the mandatory pre-deposit amount required for filing an GST litigation case appeal. In technical terms, the Supreme Court rejected the petition filed by the government and hence the Gujarat High Court's judgement which allowed using electronic credit ledger (ECL) for paying the mandatory pre-deposit amount became the final to the official GST website, in the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL), all input tax credits accrued on account of inward supplies made by a taxpayer within a tax period are accumulated. Interestingly the Gujarat High Court cited the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in the case of Oasis Realty and said when that judgement is read along with a GST Policy wing circular issued on July 6, 2022, the matter becomes clear.'It has been clarified that the payment of a pre-deposit can be made by utilizing the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL). In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the petitioner may utilize the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger to pay the 10% of Tax in dispute as prescribed under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act,' said Gujarat High Court in its judgement dated October 17, below to know how this Supreme Court judgement impacts GST registered taxpayers, and which taxpayers should benefit from the legal reasonings used in this to the Gujarat High Court order dated October 17, 2024 which was accepted by the Supreme Court on May 19, 2025, here are the details:This Rs 3.36 crore amount which this company paid was made via its electronic credit ledger (ECL) and this is the main contention of the government and hence why Gujarat High Court heard this matter. The government said this payment should have been made from the electronic cash ledger and not the credit case before Bombay High Court is about 2018 to 2021 IGST refund matter, and this case is still going on as on High Court in its judgement said:'In our view, Petitioner (the company) having to pay 10% of the Tax in dispute under clause (b) of Sub-section (6) of Section 107, can certainly utilise the amount of ITC available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. We hasten to add that in view of provisions of Subsection (3) of Section 49, the party may also pay this 10% of the Tax in dispute by utilising the amount available in the cash ledger. 'According to the order of Gujarat High Court which was ultimately held final by the Supreme Court, here are the details:Gujarat High Court quashed the order issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and said the following:'Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Oasis Realty (supra) as well as the circular dated 6th July 2022 issued by the GST Policy Wing, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, it has been clarified that the payment of predeposit can be made by utilizing the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL). In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the petitioner may utilize the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger to pay the 10% of Tax in dispute as prescribed under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act.'When an appeal against this order was filed in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the Gujarat High Wealth Online have asked various experts about the significance of this order for GST registered taxpayers, here's what they said:'The order re-affirms the stance previously adopted by various high courts. The decision will enable the taxpayers to use their accumulated credit balances for pre-deposit which will prevent their working capital from being tied up. The decision will also help taxpayers with ongoing court proceedings by providing a basis for seeking relief.'The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the revenue department challenging the Gujarat High Court's ruling brings significant relief to taxpayers, as it allows them to use input tax credit (ITC) for the mandatory pre-deposit required when filing appeals. However, it's important to remember that the dismissal of an SLP does not amount to the Supreme Court endorsing the lower court's decision. Since the Supreme Court's order did not deal with the issue involved, it does not qualify as a binding legal precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. Additionally, it should be noted that a separate SLP concerning the same issue—whether ITC can be used for mandatory pre-deposits—is still pending before the is a welcome judgement from the Supreme Court of India regarding pre-deposit of tax while filling of appeal under CGST Act. It clears the ambiguity regarding pre-deposit of tax through cash ledger or credit ledger. Now tax payers can file their appeals without worrying for complying with the requirement of additional funds from bank/cash for filling of appeals under CGST Act-2017. It will reduce the working capital crunch of the business, which on one hand are budened with unnecessary litigation and on the other further budened by paying pre-deposit monies for making their voice heard in the appeals. In a way the clarification aligns with and supports the cardinal requirement of natural justice. Hope some day the blind and uniform requirements of pre-deposit is done away with in deserving biggest beneficiary of this decision would be the exporters of goods and/or services. Exporters accumulate credit which they have to claim as a refund from the GST authorities. Non-utilisation of ITC toward pre-deposit meant that the exporter is required to block his funds in making pre-deposit while his accumulated input tax credit remains idle. Now, with the Supreme Court's judgement, they would be able to utilise the input tax credit and the working capital requirement would come domestic suppliers, the impact would be limited and would vary from case to case. In most businesses, the input tax credit is usually spent within a month or so and no such credit gets accumulated. So, usually pre-deposit in such cases is made through cash ledger only.' Many times Taxpayers are convinced that their case is strong but faced difficulty arranging 10% pre-deposit for filing appeal, as it used to hit their working capital. This Supreme court judgement is going to give relief for many such assesee. Also Many Large Appeals were pending before various authorities where Pre-Deposit was done through Electronic Credit ledger and were pending since long as department was insisting on pre-deposit thorough cash ledger for admitting the appeal. Now this judgement will open the ways for them Niraj explains that If we check the wordings of Rule 86 then at one place it states that 'The electronic credit ledger shall be debited to the extent of discharge of any liability in accordance with the provisions of section 49 1 [or section 49A or section 49B].'. Also Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST dated 6th July 2022 states that ' As per sub-section (4) of section 49, the electronic credit ledger can be used for making payment of output tax only under the CGST Act or the IGST Act. It cannot be used for making payment of any interest, penalty, fees or any other amount payable under the said acts. Similarly, electronic credit ledger cannot be used for payment of erroneous refund sanctioned to the taxpayer, where such refund was sanctioned in cash.''The pre-deposit for appeal is to ensure for payment of liability and cannot be termed as interest, penalty etc, therefore Supreme court rightly dismissed the department's SLP as GST Law prescribes for Payment through ECL for discharge of liabilities without any restriction .Pankaj Goel, Partner, CNK, explains: 'The pre-deposit serves as a safeguard against frivolous or excessive claims by taxpayers while ensuring that the interest of the revenue is protected during the appeal process. It is a provisional mechanism that requires the taxpayer to make an initial payment before filing an appeal, thereby demonstrating a genuine commitment to the process and helping prevent abuse of the appellate system. This mechanism strikes a balance between the interests of the taxpayer and the adds: 'A pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount is mandatory before filing an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). If the taxpayer wishes to further appeal against the order of the FAA before the Appellate Tribunal, an additional 10% of the disputed tax must be deposited. In case of a further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the full disputed amount is generally required to be paid, unless a stay is specifically granted by the respective Court.'Mehta says: "The functionality of payment of pre-deposit through credit ledger is already operational. Thus, the taxpayers have been utilising this option, except where department insists on payment through cash ledger. While the mechanism is already in place, an advisory outlining the procedural aspects and clarifying the fate of the payments already made by taxpayers would be a welcome step. The taxpayers who are currently using the electronic cash ledger for pre-deposits can now begin utilising their credit balances."
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Time of India
Gujarat HC orders Rs 25L compensation for widow of covid warrior
AHMEDABAD: Nearly five years after a death due to Covid-19, a corona warrior's family will receive compensation of Rs 25 lakh as announced by the state govt in April 2020. The Gujarat High Court has directed the govt to make the payment within six weeks. According to the case details, Ahmed Patel was working as a weigh-man in a Pandit Deendayal Grahak Bhandar – a fair price shop in Aachhod village in Bharuch district. Patel was on emergency duty following the govt's directive during the pandemic and was engaged in the distribution of essential commodities on behalf of the state govt. During this time, Patel contracted Covid-19, and he died on August 12, 2020. His widow, Tahera, applied for Rs 25 lakh financial assistance citing an April 24, 2020 govt resolution in which the state govt pledged financial assistance for those corona warriors who died while performing Covid duty. The weigh-man in govt-recognised fair price shops was included in the list of corona warriors. The widow's application was rejected by the govt on January 9, 2023. This led her to file a petition in the HC through advocates Abid Pathan and Sakib Patel. They argued that there was no dispute regarding death due to Covid-19. All the authorities concerned certified and verified it and recommended the payment of compensation. However, the govt rejected the compensation claim on the grounds that the district supply officer had not supplied the list of the employees engaged in emergency services within the prescribed time limit. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Τι είναι το ChatGPT για το οποίο μιλάνε όλοι; courses AI Undo The state govt opposed the widow's petition and tried to justify its rejection because the Bharuch district authority had not sent the list of employees on Covid duty in fair price shops before November 20, 2020, which was beyond the time prescribed in the GR. After the hearing, Justice Aniruddha Mayee said that the compensation claim was not rejected on merits, but due to the default on the part of the district supply officer in supplying the data within the prescribed time period. While quashing the govt's decision to reject the claim, the HC stated, 'The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the default on the part of the respondent authorities. The said Government Resolution confers financial benefits as a benevolent resolution acknowledging the contribution of such employees who expired while performing essential services during the Covid-19 pandemic on behalf of the State Government .'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
19-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
SC upholds use of input tax credit for mandatory GST appeal deposit
In the context of GST, a tax credit refers to input tax credit, or ITC, which means the credit of GST paid on purchases that a business can use to offset the GST liabilities on sales Monika Yadav In a relief for businesses, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that taxpayers could use their electronic credit ledger (ECrL), a digital record of tax credits earned from purchases, to make advance deposits required in the case of disputes on goods and services tax (GST). In the context of GST, a tax credit refers to input tax credit, or ITC, which means the credit of GST paid on purchases that a business can use to offset the GST liabilities on sales. This overrides demands by tax authorities that only the electronic cash ledger (ECL) be used. The ECL tracks cash payments like taxes, penalties, or fees. According to experts, the ruling ends discomfort for businesses, which can preserve cash by using ECrL balances instead. The dispute began when Yasho Industries, a Mumbai-based specialty chemicals manufacturer, was asked to pay ~3.36 crore 'only in cash' (via ECL) as a pre-deposit in an appeal despite having enough credits in its ECrL. The Gujarat High Court in October upheld the company's position, citing a 2022 government circular . The Supreme Court thereafter dismissed the Revenue's appeal. While the Revenue's circular said taxpayers could use ECrL for output tax liabilities, it did not define whether pre-deposits for appeals fell in this category. The term 'output tax' typically refers to tax on outward supplies, not procedural deposits. This ambiguity allowed tax authorities to insist on ECL payments for disputes, arguing that pre-deposits were not tax liabilities but procedural mandates. While Circular No. 172/2022 clarified that taxpayers could use the ECrL for output tax liabilities, it did not explicitly define whether pre-deposits for appeals fell under this category. The term 'output tax' typically refers to taxes on outward supplies, not procedural deposits. This ambiguity allowed tax authorities to insist on payments for disputes, arguing that pre-deposits were not 'tax liabilities' but procedural mandates. The Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court, however, ruled that under the circular pre-deposits qualified as compliance with tax obligations, closing this interpretational gap. The apex court Bench, comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, rejected the Revenue's special leave petition (SLP), upholding the Gujarat High Court's decision in Yasho Industries Ltd vs Union of India. 'The Supreme Court's decision will provide relief to millions of taxpayers by allowing the use of the electronic credit ledger,' said Abhishek Rastogi, founder of Rastogi Chambers, who argued for the taxpayer before the Supreme Court. 'The GST Council always intended ensuring a seamless and taxpayer-friendly mechanism for filing appeals, but a myopic interpretation by certain executive authorities had created unnecessary hurdles. This ruling rightly restores the balance.' According to Saurabh Agarwal, tax Partner, EY, this ruling, by allowing taxpayers to use their existing credit to make these pre-deposits, will free up their cash. 'If they eventually win their case (in GST disputes), they won't have to claim refunds because the adjustment would already be within their credit ledger. It's a win-win in terms of immediate cash flow and avoiding hassles,' he said.
