Author: admin_gst

Regular Bail Granted for Forgery and GST Evasion Under Strict Statutory Bond Conditions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted regular bail to the petitioners accused of forgery, fraud involving signatures, and GST evasion, despite sufficient prima facie evidence against them. The court recognized that pre-trial custody should not equate to post-conviction punishment and noted the petitioners' detention since 20.03.2025. Considering the nature of the offenses and the applicable penal provisions, the court found no justification for continued pre-trial incarceration. Bail was allowed subject to strict compliance with statutory bond conditions, including mandatory court appearances and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, police officials, or others connected to the case. The petitioners were directed to adhere to these terms to maintain bail status.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismissed; objections against property attachment must be filed within 15 days under Rule 159 of CGST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held the petition to be not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017 for filing objections against property attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The petitioner was directed to file objections within 15 days, failing which the petition would not be entertained. The competent authority was mandated to consider and decide the objections in accordance with law within three months. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment Order Without Signature Declared Invalid Under CGST Act Sections 160 and 169, Fresh Assessment Ordered
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 23.01.2025 due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature, rendering the order invalid. Citing precedent from multiple Division Bench rulings, the Court reaffirmed that the signature on an assessment order is mandatory and cannot be cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The matter was remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh assessment, mandating issuance of notice and proper signing of the new order. The limitation period is tolled from the date of the original impugned order until receipt of this judgment. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment Order Set Aside for Lack of Personal Hearing and Improper Service Under GST Section 169
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned assessment order dated 21.01.2025 due to violation of natural justice principles, as the petitioner was not afforded a personal hearing and was unaware of the show cause notice served solely via the GST Portal. The Court held that mere portal upload does not constitute effective service when no response is received, and the assessing officer must consider alternative service modes under Section 169 of the GST Act to ensure proper notice. The Court emphasized that passing ex parte orders after fulfilling only formalities leads to unnecessary litigation. Noting that 55% of the disputed tax had already been recovered, the HC remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, disposing of the petition accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Second Bail Application Dismissed Under Sections 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of CGST Act Due to Non-Compliance
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the second bail application filed under sections 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, noting that the first bail application was not pressed after the applicant failed to comply with a prior court order to appear before the concerned court within two weeks. The court observed that the applicant remains out of custody and has flouted the consent order dated 2.1.2023. Given the applicant's non-compliance and absence from custody, the HC found no grounds to entertain the bail application on merit and consequently dismissed the second bail plea as devoid of merit.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assignment of Leasehold Rights in Industrial Plots Is Transfer of Property Benefits, Not Supply of Services Under GST Section 7(1)(a)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the assignment by sale and transfer of leasehold rights of industrial plots allotted by a government agency constitutes transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not supply of services. Consequently, Section 7(1)(a) of the Act, along with Clause 5(b) of Schedule 2 and Clause 5 of Schedule 3, does not apply, and such transactions are not subject to GST levy under Section 9. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2024 issued under Section 74 in Form GST DRC-07, thereby allowing the petition. This decision aligns with prior rulings, including the setting aside of a show cause notice dated 03.08.2024, confirming that the transaction falls outside the ambit of taxable supply under GST law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancelled for non-filing returns; restoration possible after pending dues and compliance under Rule 22(4) proviso
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to non-filing of returns for six continuous months. However, relying on the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Court held that if the petitioner submits all pending returns and pays the outstanding tax along with interest and late fees, the empowered officer has jurisdiction to drop cancellation proceedings and restore registration by issuing Form GST REG-20. The writ petition was disposed of with a directive that the petitioner may approach the competent authority within two months to seek restoration of GST registration upon compliance with the prescribed formalities.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cancellation of GST Registration Set Aside for Lack of Natural Justice and Non-Application of Mind
Case-Laws
GST
The HC rejected the respondents' contention regarding time-barred appeal and held the cancellation of GST registration invalid due to non-application of mind and violation of natural justice principles. The court found that the quasi-judicial authority failed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, rendering the cancellation order non-speaking and legally infirm. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 11.08.2022, 12.09.2022, 22.08.2024, and 03.09.2024 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Superintendent, Danapur, for fresh adjudication, directing a thorough consideration of the petitioner's contentions and completion of proceedings within three months from receipt of the order. The petition was allowed by way of remand, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness and statutory requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cancellation of GST Registration Under Section 29(2)(c) Valid; Restoration Allowed Under Rule 22(4) Proviso
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) CGST Act for non-filing of returns for six continuous months is valid. However, pursuant to the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 CGST Rules, if the petitioner is willing to furnish all pending returns and pay the outstanding tax, interest, and late fees, the empowered officer has jurisdiction to drop the cancellation proceedings and restore registration by issuing Form GST REG-20. The court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within two months to seek restoration of GST registration by complying with the prescribed formalities. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, providing a remedy for reinstatement upon fulfillment of statutory requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: Central GST proceedings valid under Sections 6(2)(b), 67(1), and 73 of CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the appeal challenging the issuance of the SCN under Section 73 of the CGST Act. It was held that the Central GST authorities had validly initiated proceedings first, including inspection under Section 67(1) and issuance of a show cause notice, thereby precluding the State GST authorities from initiating parallel proceedings on the same subject matter as per Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The State proceedings, including issuance of DRC-01 and DRC-02, were closed without adjudication. Consequently, the Central GST proceedings were not barred, and the appellant's contention lacked merit. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Service of show cause notices only via GST portal violates Section 169, denying fair hearing and voiding ex parte orders
Case-Laws
GST
The HC found that service of show cause notices solely by uploading on the GST portal, without exploring alternate modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act, violated principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing. The impugned ex parte order dated 17.12.2024 was set aside due to inadequate service and lack of personal hearing. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order. The setting aside of the order will take effect only upon such payment. The Court emphasized that reliance on a single mode of notice without due diligence to ensure effective service undermines the objectives of the GST Act and leads to unnecessary litigation, thereby wasting judicial and administrative resources. The petition was disposed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ex-parte GST penalty orders under Sections 47 and 125 set aside for lack of proper notice and hearing opportunity
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the ex-parte assessment and penalty orders dated 26.12.2024 passed under the GST Act, holding that non-service of physical notices and failure to provide an opportunity of hearing violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner had been subjected to a late fee under Section 47, and the imposition of penalty under Section 125 without proper notice was found unsustainable. The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advance Ruling Void for Nondisclosure Under Section 104; Appeal Dismissed for Suppression of Facts
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR upheld the rejection of the appellant's claim regarding the classification of supply and applicable GST rate on plastic toys, as well as the entitlement to ITC on debit notes issued in 2020-21 for transactions in 2018-19. The authority found that the appellant failed to disclose all material facts as mandated under Section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017, constituting suppression and misrepresentation. Consequently, the Advance Ruling was declared void for non-compliance with statutory disclosure requirements. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that applications for advance ruling must meet the threshold under Section 98(2) and fully disclose relevant facts to enable proper adjudication.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC Allowed on Inputs and Services for Concrete Tower Supporting Plant Machinery Under Section 17 CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR held that the appellant is entitled to avail ITC on inputs and input services used for constructing the concrete tower supporting and erecting VCV lines at its factory for manufacturing EHV cables. The concrete structure was deemed an essential foundation and structural support for plant and machinery, falling within the scope of the second explanation to section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, such ITC does not fall under the restrictions of section 17(5)(c) and (d). The ruling analogized the eligibility of ITC on foundations and supports to the allowance of ITC on ducts and manholes used in OFCs, affirming that these inputs and services are integral to plant and machinery and thus eligible for ITC. The appellant's claim for ITC on construction of the concrete tower was allowed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Applicant building metro stations not a “Government Authority” under Para 2(zf) of Notification 12/2017-CT (Rate)
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant, a commercial entity engaged in constructing metro stations, does not qualify as a “Government Authority” under Paragraph-2(zf) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended. The applicant neither performs functions entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W nor to a Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution, nor has any agreement with the local municipal corporation (BBMP) to carry out such functions. The constructed metro stations remain the exclusive property of the applicant and do not constitute public amenities vested in the local government. Consequently, the grant of concession under the MOU dated 04.06.2018 to the concessionaire is not eligible for GST exemption under the relevant exemption notification, as the fundamental criterion of being a “Government Authority” is not satisfied.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Exemption Applies Only When Cattle Feed Is Supplied Directly for Feeding Under Notification 2/2017
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant's product classified under tariff heading 2302.10 as “cattle feed” qualifies for GST exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), S. No. 102, only when supplied for direct feeding to cattle. However, when the product is used as an ingredient to produce a new feed with enhanced nutritive value and not fed directly to animals, it loses the character of “cattle feed” and thus does not qualify for exemption. Regarding the documentation required from customers to claim exemption, the AAR found the query outside its jurisdiction under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, and accordingly declined to issue any ruling on that matter.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

NSDC Training Partner Services Eligible for GST Exemption Under Notification No. 12/2017 Entry 69 and Section 2(31)
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant, as an approved NSDC training partner providing services under the Market Led Fee-based Services Scheme, is eligible for exemption under entry No. 69 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). Despite students being the ultimate service recipients, the partner universities collect and remit the consideration to the applicant. Consequently, the supply falls within the ambit of Section 2(31) of the CGST Act, 2017, encompassing consideration paid by any person. Therefore, the applicant's services qualify for the claimed exemption.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Artificial Turf Attracts 12% GST Alone, 18% GST When Supplied With Installation Under GST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that artificial turf/artificial grass qualifies as tufted turf under chapter 5703 and attracts GST at 12% as per entry 144 of Notification 1/2017-CT(R). When supplied with installation, it constitutes a works contract service under SAC 995428, involving transfer of property in goods and attachment to immovable property, thus treated as a composite supply of service under Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017. The reusability of the turf is subject to adhesive loss, reinforcing the works contract classification. Consequently, the works contract service is subject to GST at 18% under entry 3(xii) of Notification 11/2017-CT(R). Therefore, supply of artificial turf alone attracts 12% GST, whereas supply with installation as works contract service attracts 18% GST.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Central Goods one held
GST
Dated:- 7-8-2025

The Anti-evasion Branch of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Delhi South Commissionerate has arrested a key individual for orchestrating the evasion of Goods and Services Tax (GST) of approximately Rs.16.30 crore. The arrest follows detailed analysis of GST return data.
The investigation revealed that three closely linked companies, engaged in manpower supply and facility management services, were consistently under-reporting their

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Lok Sabha passes Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill
GST
Dated:- 7-8-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Aug 7 (PTI) The Lok Sabha on Thursday passed The Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2025, to implement the decisions approved by the GST Council.
The bill seeks to replace the Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025.
The Bill was passed by a voice vote amid din in the Lok Sabha.
Moving the bill for discussion and passing, Finance Minister Nirmala

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST fraud: ED raids in multiple states
GST
Dated:- 7-8-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Aug 7 (PTI) The Enforcement Directorate on Thursday conducted fresh searches in Jharkhand, West Bengal and Maharashtra as part of a “fake” GST invoices generation case to the tune of Rs 750 crore, official sources said.
At least a dozen premises in the three states were raided under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the sources said.
The case pertains to generation of Rs 750 crore “fake” Input T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Dismissed Against Notice for Fraudulent Input Tax Credit; Appeal Must Follow Appellate Process
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice issued for fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) involving four suppliers, with the petitioner as a recipient. The Court held that writ petitions are generally not maintainable in cases of alleged fraudulent ITC claims and emphasized that the petitioner must pursue remedies through the prescribed appellate process. The Court noted that the impugned order is appealable and the petitioner's grievances can be addressed before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, reinforcing the principle that disputes concerning fraudulent ITC claims should be resolved via statutory appeal mechanisms rather than writ jurisdiction.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order quashed for failing natural justice due to improper notice service under Section 73 of GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed and set aside the impugned order dated April 19, 2024, holding that the petitioner was denied principles of natural justice due to improper service of notices under section 73 of the Act via the GST Portal's “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, which the petitioner did not access. The court found the petitioner entitled to benefit of doubt, as no evidence showed the notices appeared under the “view notices and orders” tab, preventing the petitioner from responding or challenging the order within limitation. The HC directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice with at least 15 days' clear period in accordance with law, allowing further proceedings thereafter. The petition was allowed without calling for counter affidavits or relegating to statutory remedies, emphasizing procedural fairness.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Secondment of Employees Subject to Service Tax; No Penalty Under Section 74 CGST Act, Interest Payable from Service Date
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the petitioner's secondment of employees was correctly held by the Apex Court to be exigible to service tax, reversing the Tribunal's favorable order for the assessee. The petitioner disclosed the transaction and paid the applicable tax upon the Apex Court's ruling. The court found no wilful misstatement, suppression, or tax evasion under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, thus negating the imposition of penalty. However, interest on the delayed tax payment is payable from the date of service availment, with the exact amount to be determined by the tax authorities. The matter was remitted to the relevant authority for fresh determination of interest liability. The petition was allowed in part, confirming tax and interest liability but excluding penalty under Section 74.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Uploading GST show cause notice online alone violates natural justice; Section 169(1) requires effective alternative service methods
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that mere uploading of the show cause notice (SCN) on the GST portal without physical service does not satisfy the principles of natural justice, particularly when the petitioner remains unresponsive. The officer issuing repeated reminders must consider alternative service methods under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, such as RPAD, to ensure effective notice. The impugned assessment order dated 29.04.2024 was passed ex parte without affording the petitioner a personal hearing, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the HC set aside the order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, directing adherence to proper service and hearing procedures. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =