Goods and Services Tax

GST Assessment Order Set Aside for Lacking Document Identification Number as Required by CBIC Circular
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the GST assessment order that lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN). Following precedent established in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India (SC) and M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, the court determined that absence of a DIN renders the order non-est and invalid. The judgment relied on CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019, which mandates DIN inclusion for validity of proceedings. The court concluded that since the impugned order uploaded to the portal did not contain a DIN, it could not be sustained and must be set aside. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund of Unutilised Input Credit Allowed After Shipping Bills Properly Certified by Customs Superintendent
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated February 28, 2023, to the extent it pertained to three shipping bills (nos. 607682 and 607685 dated October 1, 2020, and 607467 dated October 22, 2020). The court ruled that petitioner should be permitted to rely on shipping bills now properly certified by the Superintendent of Customs, rejecting the administrative denial of unutilised input credit refund that had been based primarily on the technicality that six shipping bills were signed by the Customs Inspector rather than the Superintendent. The application was disposed of accordingly, allowing petitioner to proceed with the refund claim using the properly certified documentation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Haryana amnesty scheme to provide relief on penalty under GST Act
GST
Dated:- 30-3-2025
PTI
Gurugram, Mar 30 (PTI) Taxpayers will be granted relief on interest and penalty amounts payable under the GST Act for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 under an amnesty scheme introduced by the Haryana government, provided they deposit the principal tax amount by March 31, 2025, as per an official statement on Sunday.
Providing details about this initiative, Geetanjali Mor, J

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST Rules Amended: Rule 164 Changes Affect Tax Payment, Refund Process, and Appeal Withdrawal Options
Notifications
GST
The Central Government amended the CGST Rules, 2017 through Notification No. 11/2025-Central Tax dated March 27, 2025. The amendments modify Rule 164 regarding tax payments and refunds. Key changes include: (1) clarification that no refund shall be available for tax, interest, and penalties already discharged prior to these amendments where notices include demands partially within and partially outside specified periods; (2) introduction of a procedure allowing appellants to partially pursue appeals by intimating appellate authorities they do not wish to pursue appeals for specific periods (July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2020). Such intimations will be deemed as partial withdrawal of appeals. The amendments took effect upon official publication.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CBIC Clarifies Section 128A Waiver Eligibility for Pre-November Payments and Split Period Demands
Circulars
GST
The CBIC clarifies two key issues regarding Section 128A of CGST Act, which provides waiver of interest/penalty for demands under Section 73 for July 2017-March 2020 period. First, taxpayers who made payments through GSTR-3B before November 1, 2024 (when Section 128A came into force) are eligible for the benefit, though payments after this date must follow prescribed modes under Rule 164. Second, for notices/orders covering periods partially within and partially outside Section 128A's scope, taxpayers can file Form SPL-01 or SPL-02 after paying tax liability for the covered period only, and may inform the appellate authority of their intent not to pursue appeals for the 2017-20 period while continuing litigation for other periods.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Two held near UP-Uttarakhand border for collecting money by showing fake GST bills to truck drivers
GST
Dated:- 29-3-2025
PTI
Bareilly (UP), Mar 29 (PTI) Two members of a gang, allegedly claiming to be officials collecting GST, were arrested for extorting money from truck drivers near the Uttarakhand border in Bareilly district, police said on Saturday.
Three others, however, managed to flee towards Uttarakhand, when police came to catch them in the act on Thursday, they said.
Sheeshgarh Station House Officer (SHO) of Sheeshgarh police station Dharmendra Singh said the police control room received information that some people in a car on Tanda Changa-Bahedi road were stopping trucks and collecting money from drivers.
When

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transfer of Development Rights Constitutes Consideration for Developer with GST Liability at Property Transfer
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the original ruling. The Authority determined it lacked jurisdiction to decide on taxability under Finance Act, 1994 (service tax), as the appellant sought ruling on pre-GST TDR transactions. The AAAR also declined to consider new grounds introduced in appeal that weren't raised before the original authority, citing precedent from Commissioner of Cust & C Ex, Goa vs Dempo Engineering Works Ltd. The ruling confirmed that transfer of development rights constitutes receipt of consideration by the developer, and GST liability arises at the time of transfer of possession or rights in the constructed property, not when development rights are received. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Fraud Mastermind Denied Bail Under Sections 132(1) of CGST Act for Rs. 59 Crore Tax Evasion Scheme
Case-Laws
GST
The DSC dismissed the first regular bail application of the accused under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017. The accused was identified as the mastermind in defrauding the government exchequer by creating and operating multiple firms, issuing fake tax invoices for Copper Scrap without actual supply of goods, and fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit. The court determined this constituted a grave economic offense with GST evasion amounting to Rs. 59,00,98,178/-. Considering the gravity of the offense, ongoing investigation, risk of evidence tampering, potential witness influence, and flight risk, the court found it inappropriate to grant bail at this stage.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Time-Barred GST Demand Quashed: Three-Year Limitation Under Section 73(10) Expired Before Order Issuance
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed an ex-parte demand order and show cause notice issued on 14.12.2023 for the financial year 2017-18 as time-barred under Section 73(10). Following the precedent in M/s Anita Traders, the court determined that due to notification extensions, the three-year limitation period for orders under Section 73(9) expired on 05.02.2023. The court rejected arguments that the deadline extended to 31.03.2023, finding the impugned orders issued well beyond the prescribed limitation period and therefore void for lack of jurisdiction. The petition was allowed, with the challenged orders declared ultra vires for exceeding statutory time limitations.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer Wins Remand After Assessment Order Made Without Adequate Hearing Opportunity
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside both the assessment order and rectification order, remanding the matter to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. The Court found that the respondent violated principles of natural justice by issuing the impugned assessment order without providing sufficient opportunities to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's requests for adjournment to file detailed replies with supporting documents and for personal hearing following show cause notices, the respondent proceeded with the assessment. The Court held that when confirming a demand, authorities must provide adequate opportunity of hearing, which was denied in this case, necessitating remand for consideration on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anticipatory Bail Granted in GST Case Where Timely Returns Filed and No Loss to State Exchequer
Case-Laws
GST
In an anticipatory bail application involving allegations of financial misconduct, the HC granted relief to the petitioner. The Court determined that no loss was caused to the State Exchequer as the petitioner had filed GST returns punctually, with purchases by him and his firm accurately reflected in the vendor's GST R-1 Return, GST 2-A, and 3-B returns. All taxes were paid promptly. The Court considered the petitioner's willingness to join the investigation and cooperate with investigating officers as averred in paragraph 16 of the petition. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was allowed subject to fulfillment of imposed conditions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Virtual Hearings Mandatory for All RGST/CGST Act 2017 Proceedings; In-Person Appearances Require Additional Commissioner's Approval Under Section 168
Circulars
GST – States
The Rajasthan Commercial Tax Department has mandated virtual hearings for all proceedings under RGST/CGST Act 2017 and other taxation laws, effective immediately. Under Section 168 of RGST Act, in-person appearances require prior approval from the Additional Commissioner upon written request. Taxpayers will receive hearing links via registered email, and representatives must submit authorization documents in advance. Documents must be submitted digitally, with physical submissions only through designated district-level facilitation desks with proper attestation. The order establishes protocols for technical issues, decorum requirements, and document handling procedures. All virtual proceedings and electronically submitted documents are deemed valid under Section 145 of RGST/CGST Act read with Section 4 of the IT Act, 2000.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Assessment Order Invalidated for Missing Officer Signature and Document Identification Number Under CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned assessment order due to two fatal defects: absence of the assessing officer's signature and omission of the Document Identification Number (DIN). Relying on A.V. Bhanoji Row (2023), the court affirmed that an officer's signature on assessment orders is mandatory and cannot be rectified under Sections 160 & 169 of CGST Act, 2017. Additionally, following M/s. Cluster Enterprises (2024) and CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST, the court held that omission of DIN number invalidates such proceedings. These procedural deficiencies rendered the assessment order legally untenable, resulting in its invalidation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancellation Quashed Due to Non-Speaking Order and Failure to Follow FORM GST REG-19 Requirements
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the GST registration cancellation order, finding it procedurally deficient as a non-speaking order that failed to conform with FORM GST REG-19 requirements. Despite the petitioner's delayed approach (filing after approximately one year), the Court determined that the order's statutory non-compliance outweighed concerns about delay. The Court remanded the matter to the show cause notice stage, providing the petitioner two options: either submit a reply demonstrating why registration should not be cancelled under Rule 22(2) of CGST Rules read with Section 29(2)(c) of CGST Act, or furnish all pending returns with full payment of tax dues, applicable interest, late fees and penalties.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner Wins Refund Claim for Unutilized Input Tax Credit Under Section 54(3) of CGST Act Due to Inverted Tax Structure
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing respondents to process the petitioner's refund claims for unutilized Input Tax Credit under Section 54(3) of CGST Act due to inverted tax structure. The court relied on its previous ruling in the petitioner's identical case, where it had held that refund claims deserved to be allowed. Finding this precedent directly applicable to the present facts, the HC ordered respondents to make payment of the refund together with applicable interest within six weeks from receipt of the order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancellation Quashed: Retrospective Effect Invalid and Revocation Rejection Without Hearing Violates Section 30
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the cancellation of GST registration and rejection of revocation application, finding that respondents failed to provide valid justification for the cancellation. The court noted that the original cancellation order improperly imposed retrospective effect from August 3, 2017, despite no such indication in the original Show Cause Notice. Furthermore, the rejection of the revocation application without granting the petitioner a hearing violated Section 30 of the CGST Act and principles of natural justice. The court set aside the impugned SCN, order-in-appeal, original cancellation order, and the order rejecting the revocation application.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Appeal Dismissed: Time-Barred Filing Under Section 100(2) for Rent from Government SWCBH
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR rejected the appellant's appeal against a ruling concerning GST on rent received from Govt SWCBH as time-barred. Though the appellant claimed they never received communication of the original order, evidence showed the ruling was emailed on 12.02.2024 to the appellant's email address (provided in their Form GST ARA-01). Per Section 100(2) of CGST Act, appeals must be filed within 30 days, with provision for extension up to another 30 days for sufficient cause. Since the order was communicated on 12.02.2024, the appeal should have been filed by 13.03.2024. Without valid justification for the 22-day delay, the appeal was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Setting Aside Partial AAR Ruling on GST for Land Development: AAAR Remands Case for Complete Adjudication Under Section 101
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR determined that the appeal was not maintainable as the AAR had failed to address three questions in its original ruling. Since the questions regarding GST on developed plot sales, development services to landowners, transfer of development rights, valuation of services, and timing of tax payments were interlinked, the AAAR could not effectively decide on the partial ruling. Despite Section 101 of CGST Act, 2017 lacking explicit remand provisions, the AAAR set aside the lower authority's order and remanded the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration to ensure complete adjudication of all interrelated questions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC Must Be Reversed on Inputs Used for Goods Later Destroyed in Fire Under Section 17(5) of SGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR held that a registered person must reverse Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed on inputs used to manufacture steel nails that were subsequently destroyed in a fire accident. While Section 16 of SGST Act, 2017 generally allows ITC on inputs used in furtherance of business, Section 17(5) specifically prohibits ITC on goods that are “lost, stolen, destroyed or written off.” The AAAR emphasized that Section 17(5) contains a non-obstante clause giving it overriding effect over Section 16(1) and Section 18(1). Therefore, despite the appellant's arguments regarding Section 16(1), the AAAR upheld the original Advance Ruling, requiring the appellant to reverse ITC on inputs used in manufacturing the destroyed finished goods.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Electricity and Water Charges by Lessor to Lessee Form Part of Renting Services Under Section 8(a), Attracting GST
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR determined that electricity and water charges collected by a lessor from a lessee constitute part of the principal supply of “renting of immovable property” under Section 8(a) of the CGST Act, not a separate supply. The lessor cannot be considered a pure agent as there is no sub-meter in the lessee's name and no authorization for payment. The exemption for electricity transmission/distribution services under Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R) does not apply as the lessor is neither a Distribution nor Transmission Licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. Consequently, GST is applicable on the entire consideration including electricity and water charges at the rate applicable to renting services.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancellation Overturned as Authorities Failed to Establish Rule 21 Violations or Improper Registration
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the cancellation of petitioner's GST registration, finding that authorities failed to follow proper procedural requirements. The appellate authority had rejected the appeal solely because the HSN/SAC code disclosure in registration applications suggested two registrations covered the same business. However, the court determined that authorities did not establish any violations under Rule 21 of the GST Act, which prescribes specific conditions for registration cancellation. The revenue department also failed to demonstrate that petitioner obtained registration by breaching conditions under Section 29(2) read with Rule 21. The court directed immediate restoration of the petitioner's GST registration upon presentation of the order.
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 When Seller's GST Registration Was Valid During Transaction Despite Later Cancellation
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the petitioner was entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC) despite the seller's GST registration being canceled retrospectively. Since the transaction occurred on 06.12.2018 when the seller was validly registered, and the cancellation took effect from 29.01.2020, no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that under Sections 16 and 74 of the GST Act and Rule 36 of GST Rules, ITC eligibility depends on conditions fulfilled at the time of transaction. The authorities failed to verify GSTR-1A, GSTR-3B, and tax deposits by the seller. The petition was allowed, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with a reasoned order after hearing all stakeholders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Ex-Parte Order Set Aside: Taxpayers Must Receive Proper Notice Under Section 73 Before Assessment
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside an ex-parte order issued without proper service of show cause notice, finding it violated principles of natural justice. Following precedents established in Ola Fleet Technologies and Akriti Food Industry cases, the Court determined that taxpayers facing liability must receive opportunity to present their defense. Rather than prolonging litigation, the HC directed that the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 should be treated as notice under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, allowing the petitioner to file objections and submit relevant documentation to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. The petition was accordingly disposed of with directions for the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's submissions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund of Unutilized ITC Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Payments Were Remitted to Different Branch's Bank Account
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed an order denying refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit for FY 2022-23 and Q1 of FY 2023-24. The respondent had rejected the refund claim because payments for exported services by petitioner's Delhi branch office were remitted to a bank account in Bangalore. Relying on Cable and Wireless Global India Private Limited, the Court held that mapping a Bangalore bank account after receiving remittances validates that services were exported by the Delhi branch office. The Court found the respondent's objection overly technical and unsustainable, ruling that remittance to a Bangalore bank account does not preclude refund eligibility. The petitioner's claim was remanded for reconsideration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Summons Under Section 70 Doesn't Create Tax Liability or Initiate Proceedings Against Taxpayer
Case-Laws
GST
The HC addressed a challenge to a summons issued under s.70 of the GST Act seeking information from the petitioner. The court clarified that s.74 of the CGST Act applies to tax evasion cases involving willful misstatement or fraud, permitting penalties up to 100% of unpaid tax, with reduced penalties available at various stages of admission and payment. The court determined that the 2nd respondent's communication aligned with s.74 provisions and did not create liability or initiate proceedings against the petitioner. The petition was closed, preserving the petitioner's right to oppose any future proceedings for tax short payment, evasion, or wrongful ITC availment.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =