Goods and Services Tax

Extended GST limitation permits distinct scrutiny-based demands despite prior audit, but requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or tax-evasive suppression.
Notes
GST
Section 74's five-year limitation applies only where fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax provides the statutory basis for the demand. Section 61 return scrutiny and Section 65 audit are separate processes; prior audit findings or Section 73 action do not automatically bar a later Section 74 notice where scrutiny identifies a materially distinct unreconciled input tax credit discrepancy. Departmental knowledge is relevant only if the later notice rests on identical disclosed facts and grounds. At the notice stage, the taxpayer must contest duplication, computation and the alleged intent to evade in reply. If an appellate authority, tribunal or court finds Section 74 ingredients unestablished, Section 75(2) permits treatment of the notice under Section 73, subject to limitation and sustainable underlying liability.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Blocked construction input tax credit persists despite taxable rental income, subject only to proven plant or structural-support exceptions.
Notes
GST
Input tax credit for construction of immovable property used in a rental business remains subject to statutory blocked-credit restrictions. Although renting is a taxable supply of services, the general business-use entitlement does not override the bar on works contract services for construction or goods and services used to construct immovable property on the taxpayer's own account. Taxable rental income alone neither meets the exception for further supply of works contract services nor establishes that a building is qualifying plant. Eligibility may depend on a fact-specific functionality analysis or proof that expenditure relates to a foundation or structural support integral to identified plant and machinery. Claims must also satisfy timing, documentary, disclosure and utilisation requirements; inadequate statutory disclosure may trigger fraud or suppression-based demand, interest and penalty exposure.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Inverted duty structure refunds require proof that cotton yarn was manufactured rather than merely traded before eligibility is determined.
Case-Laws
GST
Eligibility for an inverted duty structure refund on cotton yarn depends on factual verification of whether the claimant manufactured yarn using cotton fibre, packing materials and consumables, or merely traded in yarn. Documentary examination must establish the nature of the activity before refund eligibility is determined. Refund-rejection and appellate orders were quashed, with the claims remitted for factual verification and fresh final orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Reliance on Quashed GST Circular Requires Fresh Examination of Inverted-Duty Refund Eligibility for Cotton-Yarn Clearances.
Case-Laws
GST
Reliance on a previously quashed departmental circular could not sustain rejection of an inverted-duty refund claim for cotton-yarn clearances. High Court quashed the appellate order because it rested on that circular and required fresh examination of the inputs procured and their use in manufacturing and clearing cotton yarn before refund eligibility could be determined. The refund claims were remitted for fresh examination, with refund to be granted if eligibility is established.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Transitional input tax credit claims may use extended filing and revision facility, subject to merits verification.
Case-Laws
GST
Transitional input tax credit claimants could file or revise Form GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 within the extended window available to aggrieved registered assessees. Claims filed or revised through that facility remain subject to verification on merits after a reasonable opportunity is provided. The extended mechanism therefore preserves access to transitional credit claims while requiring substantive verification before credit is granted.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Statutory personal hearing requirements invalidate unreasoned GST demands based solely on duplicate e-way bills and require fresh adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
Statutory personal hearing under GST requires a real and effective opportunity where a taxable person requests a hearing before an adverse adjudication. Failure to provide a post-reply hearing vitiates the original adjudication and requires fresh consideration. A reasoned order must address the taxpayer's explanation, relevant facts, evidentiary basis, and grounds for inferring an additional taxable supply; a bare rejection of the reply is insufficient. Non-cancellation of a duplicate e-way bill is a material but non-conclusive circumstance, requiring cumulative assessment with primary evidence and surrounding facts. Following amendment, pre-show-cause intimation is enabling, so its non-issuance does not independently require remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Reasoned Appellate Orders Require Consideration of Grounds, with Remand for Effective Hearing and Fresh Adjudication
Case-Laws
GST
Reasoned and speaking appellate orders require consideration of the appellants' material grounds and cited authorities; a bare affirmation of original orders in identical terms fails to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Where original adjudication proceeded ex parte and objections concerning notice, relied-upon documents, and personal hearing remain unexamined, remand preserves the effective appellate remedy rather than a merits decision at the appellate stage. The appellate and original orders were set aside, with fresh adjudication requiring identification and availability of relied-upon documents, reasonable time to reply, an effective personal hearing, and reasoned orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Common portal service of GST notices may not establish effective notice, permitting writ relief against limitation dismissal.
Case-Laws
GST
Service of a GST show-cause notice solely through upload on the Common Portal may be inadequate where receipt is unacknowledged, no reply is filed, and the taxpayer lacks effective knowledge of the proceedings. Although the statutory limitation period binds the appellate authority, writ jurisdiction may address delay caused by circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control where refusing merits adjudication would cause grave injury or prejudice. In the stated circumstances, delay in filing the GST appeal against an input tax credit demand was condoned, the limitation-based dismissal was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the fresh appeal on merits without raising limitation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST proceedings require identical subject matter; distinct ITC allegations, adequate hearing notices, and supplier-payment conditions remain enforceable.
Case-Laws
GST
Parallel GST proceedings are barred only where proceedings under the State enactment were initiated earlier and both proceedings concern the same subject matter. Turnover reconciliation based on GSTR-3B and allegations of issuing invoices without supply and wrongly passing input tax credit involve distinct subject matters, so the bar does not apply. Ex parte adjudication does not breach natural justice where hearing notices are properly sent and the noticee neither appears nor provides a substantive reply. Input tax credit may validly be conditional on the supplier's payment of tax, a position affirmed by the Supreme Court. Statutory appellate remedy remains available for objections to the demand without a merits determination.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Curable GST registration non-compliance permits restoration consideration where bank details are corrected and statutory dues are cleared.
Case-Laws
GST
GST registration cancellation for non-disclosure of bank details and multiple registrations linked to a joint account is addressed as curable procedural non-compliance where fraud, fake invoicing, circular trading and tax evasion are absent. Because cancellation has serious civil consequences and GST law prioritises compliance over punishment, taxpayers willing to furnish correct bank details, file pending returns and pay statutory dues, interest and penalty should receive an opportunity to establish bona fides. Cancellation may be set aside and restoration considered through a reasoned hearing, with restoration conditional on filing pending returns and payment of outstanding dues.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Procedural validity of GST assessment order defeats challenge despite zero-rated supply refund claim and related interest and penalty demands.
Case-Laws
GST
GST assessment order was challenged on the basis that zero-rated supplies entitled the petitioner to a refund under the IGST and CGST/TNGST provisions. The assessment also required payment of interest and penalty under the respective GST enactments. No procedural irregularity was found in the assessment process, and the writ challenge was dismissed. The dispute therefore centred on the procedural validity of the assessment despite the asserted entitlement to a refund for zero-rated supplies.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

E-way bill Part-B omissions require proven tax-evasion intent, while missing MOV-09 orders vitiate detention penalties.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 129 penalties for an unfilled Part-B of an e-way bill require independent, recorded evidence of intent to evade tax; a technical or clerical omission alone is insufficient where invoices, Part-A particulars and other documentation establish a transparent, tax-paid transaction. Penalties imposed without positive proof of tax-evasion intent are legally unsustainable. Following detention and consideration of objections, a final reasoned order in Form GST MOV-09 must be issued after providing a hearing. Failure to issue that speaking order prejudices the taxpayer's rights and vitiates the resulting penalty demand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Expired e-way bill penalties require tax-evasion context; clerical PIN-code errors without evasive intent should not trigger detention.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 129 penalty for an expired e-way bill must serve its tax-evasion prevention purpose, notwithstanding that the provision does not expressly require mens rea. Board instructions identifying situations in which section 129 need not be invoked bind the proper officer. Where goods matched the e-way bill and delivery challan, and an erroneous consignor PIN code shortened rather than extended validity, the lapse was clerical. Without any allegation of intent to evade tax, detention and penalty proceedings under section 129 were unwarranted.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

E-way bill Part-B omissions require evidence of tax-evasion intent before detention penalties can be sustained.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 129 penalties for failure to update Part-B of an e-way bill require independent findings of an intent to evade tax where the goods movement is otherwise supported by genuine tax documents. The integrated electronic GST framework distinguishes technical or procedural omissions from active tax-evasion attempts. Where the invoice, Part-A details and underlying transaction transparently establish the movement, non-updation of Part-B alone should not sustain a penalty. Strict-liability principles developed under the legacy manual check-post regime are not treated as governing such electronic GST compliance failures.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GSTR-2A mismatch requires transaction-level proof of input tax credit; cross-head set-off and unsupported remand requests fail.
Case-Laws
GST
GSTR-2A non-reflection for FY 2018-19 operates as a scrutiny trigger rather than an automatic bar to input tax credit, but the claimant must prove substantive eligibility with objective, transaction-level evidence. A supplier certificate is evidentiary material, not a statutory deeming rule; unsupported B2C-reporting errors and residual IGST mismatches do not establish credit. IGST, CGST and SGST are distinct credit heads, so cross-head set-off requires legally permissible, transaction-level reconciliation. Additional evidence cannot fill evidentiary gaps or justify remand after adequate opportunities. Where wrongly availed credit was utilised, interest follows absent a demonstrated computational error, and non-fraud penalty applies where no separate basis for relief exists.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Additional court fees on GST first appeals remain payable, but non-payment dismissal was set aside for merits review.
Case-Laws
GST
Additional court fees are payable on GST first appeals before the State appellate authority under the applicable court-fees law, notwithstanding the statutory pre-deposit prescribed for filing the appeal. The levy binds both the appellate authority and taxpayers within the State's jurisdiction. Where the appellant undertakes to pay the requisite fees, dismissal of the first appeal for non-payment may be set aside and the matter remanded for decision on merits after observing natural justice.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Interlocutory relief requires a registered appeal, while urgent cases may receive expedited scrutiny before substantive hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
Interlocutory relief under Rule 29 is contemplated only in a pending appeal. Where a statutory appeal remains under scrutiny and is not registered, stay or early-hearing relief cannot receive substantive consideration. Urgency may instead justify expedited scrutiny, subject to procedural compliance. Once deficiencies are cleared and the appeal is registered, the interlocutory application may be tagged to it and placed before the Bench for consideration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit cannot be denied without transaction-specific proof of sham supplies despite retrospective supplier registration cancellation.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit claimed on invoices from a supplier whose registration was retrospectively cancelled requires examination of the facts and evidence for each underlying transaction. Retrospective cancellation alone does not establish credit ineligibility unless specific material shows that invoices were fictitious or sham, or that supplies were not received. Differences between figures in GST returns, standing alone, likewise do not establish an erroneous credit claim. A demand cannot be sustained on a ground materially different from the basis of the original proceedings. Subsequent amendments in GST records may be relevant to determining limited credit eligibility.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Reasoned appellate GST orders require consideration of material grounds, precedents, and procedural fairness before confirming tax demands.
Case-Laws
GST
Reasoned and speaking appellate GST orders must address material grounds of appeal and cited precedents; merely confirming an ex parte demand for lack of satisfactory evidence fails to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Where original adjudication occurred ex parte and objections concerning notice, relied-upon documents, and hearing remain unresolved, remand for fresh original adjudication preserves the appellate remedy. Fresh proceedings require identification and access to relied-upon documents, a reasonable opportunity to respond, an effective personal hearing, and reasoned findings based on evidence. Non-participation without sufficient cause permits determination on the existing record, but not without reasons.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Zero-rated turnover includes export invoices issued during the refund period when goods are subsequently exported from India.
Case-Laws
GST
For export refunds under rule 89(4), net input tax credit, turnover of zero-rated supply and adjusted total turnover must correspond to the same relevant period. Export invoices for goods intended for export are issued before or at removal of goods; their value is included in zero-rated turnover where issued during that period, even if the goods are exported later, provided actual export is established. Refund cannot be denied solely because export occurred after the relevant period. An objection that certain input tax credit was inadmissible did not affect the sanctioned refund because the maximum computable refund remained higher than the amount claimed. The departmental appeal was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Project-level anti-profiteering methodology treats actual post-GST ITC gains as buyer benefits, including consequential GST and interest.
Case-Laws
GST
Project-level anti-profiteering computation measures additional ITC against project expenditure, allocates the resulting saving per square foot across the project and sold area, and does not use purchase value as a turnover proxy. Only tax credit actually availed is relevant to the supplier's economic benefit; unavailed pre-GST CENVAT credit cannot notionally offset post-GST ITC, including credit on input services. GST collected on price increases arising from profiteering forms part of the benefit to be passed to homebuyers, with interest payable under the statutory scheme. Writ review does not replace specialised fact-based computations absent non-consideration of material submissions or manifest legal or jurisdictional error.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Natural justice in transfer-pricing proceedings requires a personal hearing and reasoned consideration of written objections before determination.
Case-Laws
GST
Natural justice in transfer-pricing proceedings requires a personal hearing, reasoned findings, and meaningful consideration of written submissions. Although the transfer-pricing order recorded that written replies had been considered, it neither disclosed that a personal hearing was granted nor addressed the contentions raised. The cryptic and unreasoned order was set aside, with directions for a fresh reasoned determination after a personal hearing. The time for completing the assessment was extended.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Effective GST personal hearings require reply time to expire first; premature scheduling invalidates adjudication and requires fresh proceedings.
Case-Laws
GST
Effective opportunity of personal hearing in GST adjudication requires that the hearing be scheduled after expiry of the deadline for replying to the show-cause notice. Scheduling it earlier makes the hearing illusory because the taxpayer cannot first submit the permitted response, thereby breaching principles of natural justice. Adjudication and appellate orders passed in these circumstances were quashed, with fresh proceedings to recommence from the show-cause notice stage after allowing a reply and then fixing a personal hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Statutory stay on GST recovery requires review of claimed appellate deposits and refund or recredit of excess recovery.
Case-Laws
GST
Statutory stay of the balance GST demand applies once the prescribed cumulative appellate pre-deposits are paid under the GST enactment. The High Court did not determine whether the required deposits had actually been made or whether recovery from the Electronic Cash Ledger exceeded those deposits. It directed independent consideration of the taxpayer's representation after a personal hearing and required a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated period. Any recovery found to exceed the cumulative statutory pre-deposits must be refunded or recredited. The underlying merits of the GST demand remain open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST adjudication limits: demands and penalties cannot exceed the show-cause notice, requiring fresh adjudication when statutory limits are breached.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 75(7) of the GST law prohibits an adjudicating authority from confirming a tax demand or penalty exceeding the amounts proposed in the show cause notice. This statutory restriction is mandatory, and any adjudication order exceeding the proposed demand is without jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =