Author: admin_gst

GST recovery stayed conditionally on filing undertaking and making statutory pre-deposit while Appellate Tribunal remains unavailable.
Case-Laws
GST
Pending constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the Court held that recovery of outstanding GST dues was governed by the existing CBIC circular and the statutory pre-deposit mechanism under section 112 of the CGST Act. It disposed of the writ petitions without examining the merits of the input tax credit dispute, and granted the petitioner liberty to secure continued stay of recovery by filing the prescribed undertaking before the jurisdictional proper officer and making the required pre-deposit within the time allowed. If that deposit was not made, the protection under the order would lapse and recovery of the balance demand could proceed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST on seigniorage fee and royalty stayed pending Supreme Court ruling; High Court applies earlier identical order.
Case-Laws
GST
GST proceedings on seigniorage fee/royalty for quarrying and transporting minerals were not finally adjudicated on merits because the levy issue is pending before the Supreme Court. The High Court found the facts to be almost identical to an earlier case and disposed of the writ petitions on the same terms, directing that the impugned proceedings remain in abeyance and that the respondent proceed in accordance with law after the Supreme Court decision. The Court therefore declined to examine the substantive GST demand at this stage and applied the earlier identical order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST assessment remitted for fresh adjudication after taxpayer deposits part of the disputed tax and files supporting documents.
Case-Laws
GST
A GST assessment confirming tax was set aside only to the extent of defect No. 1, because the assessee had not filed a proper reply with supporting documents to substantiate its exemption claim. The High Court noted that the adjudicating authority was not at fault for acting within the statutory timeline under Section 73, but balanced the interests of both sides by ordering de novo adjudication limited to that defect. The assessee was required to deposit 5% of the disputed tax and file the requisite documents, after which a fresh order on merits would be passed and any bank attachment would stand vacated on compliance.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Directors' personal liability for company GST dues requires statutory conditions and a hearing before bank account attachment
Case-Laws
GST
Directors cannot be made personally liable for a company's GST dues merely by virtue of office; recovery from their personal assets is permissible only if the statutory conditions for fastening vicarious liability are satisfied, including the requirements in Section 88(3) and an opportunity to show that non-recovery from the company was not due to their gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty. As the directors were not heard before their personal bank accounts were attached, the recovery notices were unsustainable. The HC set aside the attachments and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after receiving representations and granting a hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Prior tax payment proof can be placed through rectification before recovery to avoid double recovery of GST demand.
Case-Laws
GST
A taxpayer showing prima facie prior payment of the same tax amount was entitled to place proof before the proper officer through a rectification application before any recovery action was taken. Where the revenue could not dispute that the receipt corresponded to the amount later treated as short-paid, the court directed verification in accordance with law to avoid double recovery of tax already paid. The petitioner was permitted to file the rectification application within the time granted, and the proper officer was required to consider it within a reasonable period.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ jurisdiction declined against GST adjudication order; petitioner left to statutory appeal on interest under Section 50.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition against a detailed GST adjudication order was not entertained because the petitioner had already replied to the show cause notice and the impugned order was appealable. The Court found no basis to interfere in writ jurisdiction, especially since the petition was filed long after the order. It did not examine the merits, including the dispute limited to interest under Section 50 of the GST enactments, and instead left the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy. Liberty was granted to file an appeal before the appellate authority within thirty days.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit bar limited to availed tax component; depreciation on lapsed banking-company credit does not trigger double benefit.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit could not be denied on the entire tax component merely because depreciation was claimed on the unavailed portion. The HC held that section 16(3) bars credit only to the extent depreciation is claimed on the same tax component actually taken as credit, and not on the 50% portion that lapses under the banking-company scheme in section 17(4). Reading sections 16(3), 17(2) and 17(4) together, the Court found no double benefit where depreciation was claimed only on the lapsed credit. The show cause notices were quashed, and the adjudication order was interfered with only to that limited extent.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund claims under GST require examination of the service agreement before classifying supplies as export or intermediary services.
Case-Laws
GST
Refund claims under GST could not be rejected without examining the governing agreement that defined the service arrangement. The High Court found that the appellate authority had not recorded findings on whether the supplies were export of services or intermediary services, even though that characterisation was central to the claim for zero-rated treatment under the IGST Act. As the agreement was foundational to determining the nature of the services, the impugned appellate orders were unsustainable. The orders were quashed and the refund proceedings remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after hearing the parties, with all contentions kept open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Employment relationship excludes GST where bank pigmy agents act under control, supervision, and employment conditions.
Case-Laws
GST
Pigmy agents engaged by a bank were treated as employees because the relationship was marked by pervasive control, supervision and disciplinary oversight, with commission functioning in substance as wages. Their services rendered in the course of employment fell within Schedule III read with section 7(2)(a) of the GST law and were therefore neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services. The attempt to classify them as business facilitators liable under reverse charge was rejected, and the show cause notices were quashed for proceeding on an erroneous jurisdictional basis. The challenge to the limitation-extension notifications was left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Concessional GST rate linked to input tax credit reversal; higher tax rate could not be applied merely for wrongful credit availment.
Case-Laws
GST
Concessional GST for freight and time charter services was subject to non-availment of input tax credit, but the Court held that wrongly availed credit did not justify denial of the concessional entry by applying the higher tax rate. Treating the notification as both a rate and exemption notification, the Court applied Chandrapur Magnet Wires and Unichem Laboratories and held that the proper course was reversal or payment of the inadmissible credit, with interest and penalty. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh determination of the actual credit wrongly availed and utilised, together with consequential interest and 100% penalty.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ maintainability and GST rectification appeals: parallel writ relief barred, statutory appeal under Section 107 available
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition against an assessment order was held not maintainable after the assessee had already invoked rectification under Section 161, as parallel recourse was impermissible; it was also rejected as time-barred. The rectification order was treated as appealable under Section 107, which was construed broadly to cover orders passed under the Act, including Section 161 orders. The Court therefore directed resort to the statutory appellate remedy, distinguished earlier TNGST Act authority, and condoned delay for filing the appeal within the time granted, subject to statutory conditions including pre-deposit.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Conditional restoration of GST registration granted where cancellation was only for non-filing of returns, without tax evasion allegations.
Case-Laws
GST
Cancellation of GST registration for mere non-filing of returns was set aside where there was no allegation of dubious tax evasion. The HC held that continued cancellation would be counterproductive to revenue because the taxpayer could not carry on business or raise invoices, which would impede tax recovery. Following its earlier pragmatic approach, the Court restored registration conditionally on filing all pending returns for the default period and paying the requisite tax, interest, fine and penalty within the stipulated time; failing compliance, the writ petition would stand dismissed and restoration would not follow.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Premature writ challenge to ITC blockage notices deferred until replies are heard and factual issues are adjudicated
Case-Laws
GST
Writ challenges to show-cause and pre-intimation notices blocking input tax credit were held premature where the disputes turned on individual facts and the CGST Act and Rules provided a complete code. The Court declined to examine the merits of the proposed ITC action or the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) at this stage, finding that such issues required case-specific adjudication after replies and objections were considered. Petitioners were permitted to respond to the notices, and the statutory authorities were directed to decide the matters in accordance with law, while keeping all contentions open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detention and confiscation in transit require section 129 to run its course before section 130 confiscation can be invoked.
Case-Laws
GST
After interception of goods in transit, the Court held that the authorities could not bypass the detention and seizure process under section 129 and proceed straight to confiscation under section 130 by issuing Form GST MOV-10. It applied its earlier Gujarat HC decision that sections 129 and 130 operate in distinct fields, and that confiscation under section 130 is relevant only where intention to evade tax is involved. Because proceedings had been initiated under section 129 but were then converted directly into confiscation proceedings, the notice and consequential action were unsustainable and were quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Personal hearing is mandatory before confiscation under Section 130; order quashed for breach of natural justice.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 130 requires that no confiscation of goods or conveyance be ordered without giving the affected person a personal hearing. Mere consideration of a written reply is not enough to satisfy the statutory mandate or the principle of audi alteram partem. As the impugned confiscation order showed no indication that any hearing had been granted, it was held to be vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure. The High Court quashed the order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST detention proceedings require timely seizure action, ownership determination from documents, and allowance of advocate representation.
Case-Laws
GST
Detention of perishable goods could not be left pending for months without a formal seizure order or timely action under the statutory detention framework. The High Court required the authorities to determine ownership on the basis of the accompanying invoices and the applicable departmental clarification, under which the consignor or consignee is treated as the owner where the prescribed documents accompany the consignment. It also rejected the insistence on the petitioner's personal appearance, holding that representation through an advocate is permitted in GST proceedings. The matter was directed to be heard immediately, with liberty to deposit the amount under Section 129(1)(a) and for release to follow in accordance with law if payment was accepted.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transitional credit correction in revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 allowed; writ maintainable, assessment quashed, matter remitted.
Case-Laws
GST
A writ petition challenging denial of transitional credit under Section 140 of the CGST Act was held maintainable because the requested relief was correction of revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms, a remedy beyond the effective power of the statutory appellate authorities. The Court accepted that the revised forms were filed under a bona fide mistake, noted that the original credit claim had been substantially verified as eligible, and found that refusing correction would create double taxation with no allegation of tax evasion. It therefore quashed the assessment order and consequential demand, permitted rectification of the forms, and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication after hearing and production of supporting documents.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel tax enforcement barred where duplicate proceedings led to quashing of bank account attachment and restoration of business access.
Case-Laws
GST
Parallel tax enforcement on the same subject-matter was held impermissible where the Central Tax Authority had already proceeded against alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit for the same period. Applying the rule against overlapping coercive action, the Court found the State Tax Authority's provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts unwarranted, arbitrary, and lacking lawful foundation, and quashed the attachment while permitting operation of the accounts. The Court also clarified that independent investigation against suppliers could continue in accordance with law, but it could not justify continued restraint on the petitioner's business or bank accounts.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit time limit under amended law: HC allowed ITC for FY 2018-19 and set aside the larger demand.
Case-Laws
GST
HC applied the amended Section 16(5) to hold that the Section 16(4) time restriction was overridden for invoices or debit notes relating to FY 2018-19, allowing input tax credit to be availed in a return filed up to 30 November 2021. As the challenge based on delay under Section 16(4) no longer survived, the petitioner was entitled to ITC for the relevant period. The matter was disposed of on the petitioner's acceptance of liability for the excess utilised amount and interest, and the order confirming the larger demand was set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST appeal delay condoned where the portal blocked late filing, preserving the right to merits adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
Delay in filing a statutory GST appeal against cancellation of registration was condoned under writ jurisdiction where the online portal did not permit filing after limitation expired and the delay was not shown to be deliberate. The Court held that although the Appellate Authority remains bound by Section 107 limitation, denial of a hearing on merits in these circumstances would cause grave prejudice and effectively deny the statutory remedy. Relying on prior Division Bench decisions, the Court treated the delay as arising from reasons beyond the petitioner's control and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Wilful disobedience in civil contempt requires clear breach; substantial compliance defeats contempt, while quantum disputes go elsewhere.
Case-Laws
GST
Wilful disobedience is the core test for civil contempt under Article 215 and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The High Court held that the earlier writ order only required the employer to recalculate the withheld amount and pay it with statutory interest, not to pay a fixed sum. Because the authority undertook that exercise, determined entitlement, and made payment, substantial compliance was shown and no wilful disobedience was made out. Any challenge to the correctness or adequacy of the quantified amount lay before the appropriate forum, not in contempt.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Vague show cause notice under GST law set aside where audit basis was incorrect and supporting material was withheld.
Case-Laws
GST
A High Court held that a show cause notice under Section 73 was unsustainable where it rested on a factually incorrect audit premise, the supporting audit report was not supplied, and the notice failed to disclose the material particulars needed for an effective reply. The notice alleged excess input tax credit, ITC mismatch, reverse charge liability and undischarged tax liability, but did not set out the basis for those allegations. Reading Section 73(3) with natural justice, the Court ruled that the assessee must be informed of the precise tax, interest and ITC discrepancies. The notice was set aside, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mechanical GST registration cancellation quashed for non-application of mind and mismatch between notice and order.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed cancellation of GST registration where the show-cause notice was cyclostyled, the authority ignored the taxpayer's reply, and the cancellation order departed from the notice without particulars. The Court held that such a mechanical exercise showed patent non-application of mind and failure to act in accordance with the statute. It also ruled that the availability of a statutory revocation remedy did not bar interference under Article 226 in these circumstances. The cancellation order was set aside and the GST registration restored.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective GST registration cancellation requires specific notice and minimum response time; same-day cancellation was set aside.
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration is permissible only if the taxpayer is specifically put on notice that such retrospective action is proposed and is given the statutory minimum time to respond. Here, the original show cause notice did not propose retrospective cancellation, and the later communication introducing that proposal did not comply with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules because no seven working days were allowed from service of notice. The same-day retrospective cancellation was therefore contrary to Rule 22 and violative of fair procedure. The HC set aside the cancellation order, while leaving the authorities free to begin fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory limitation for GST appeals cannot be extended beyond the condonable cap through writ jurisdiction.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 107 of the GST law allows an appeal within three months, with only one further month condonable on sufficient cause; once that outer limit expires, neither the Appellate Authority nor the HC can extend time. Applying Supreme Court guidance, the Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to override the statutory limitation scheme, and explanations such as accountant negligence did not justify condonation beyond the cap. Having already pursued the statutory appeal, the petitioner was also not permitted to reopen the show-cause notice or cancellation order in writ proceedings, especially where no appearance was made before the appellate authority despite opportunity. The writ petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =