Author: admin_gst

Improper Service of Show Cause Notices Violates Natural Justice, Orders Set Aside Under Rule of Fair Hearing
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the Show Cause Notices (SCNs) dated 23rd September, 2023 and 4th December, 2023 were not properly served as they were uploaded only on the 'Additional Notices Tab' and were inaccessible to the Petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. Although the SCN dated 27th May, 2024 was properly uploaded, the Petitioner missed it. The impugned orders passed without affording the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication on merits. The Petitioner was granted time until 31st August, 2025, to file replies to the SCNs. 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

= = = = = = = =

Petition Dismissed on Penalty Under Section 122(1)(ii) CGST Act for Fraudulent GST Registration Use
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the levy of penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017, and related provisions, concerning fraudulent use of a second GST registration. The court found contradictions in the petitioner's claim of non-use of the second registration and noted the petitioner's failure to actively pursue the investigation since 2019. The petition was held to be premature for writ relief due to the necessity of factual inquiry and the expiry of the limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court emphasized the petitioner's responsibility to safeguard its identity and held that the impugned order did not merit interference. The petitioner was directed to avail statutory remedies by filing an appeal within the prescribed time with the requisite pre-deposit.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST Delhi South Commissionerate busts a racket that fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs.47.12 crore in iron one arrested
GST
Dated:- 4-8-2025

The Anti-Evasion Branch of CGST Delhi South Commissionerate has unearthed a large-scale fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) racket involving a Naraina-based taxpayer engaged in trading of iron and steel items. The case involves fraudulent availment and passing on of ITC totaling Rs.47.12 crore, based on bogus invoices against a taxable value of approximately Rs.261 crore, without any actual supply of goods.
Acting on specific intelligence developed by the Anti-Evasion wing, an investigation was initiated into a suspicious supply chain. The inquiry revealed that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Limitation for Tax Refund Claims Starts from IGST Deposit Date Under Section 77 and Rule 19(1A)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the limitation period for claiming a refund of excess taxes paid under Section 77 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 19 of the IGST Act and Rule 19(1A), commences from the date of deposit of the tax under the IGST Act, not from the date of SGST and CGST deposit. The Respondent authority erred in computing limitation from January 2018, rendering the statutory provisions and clarificatory Circular ineffective. The Court recognized the benevolent extension of limitation provided by the Circular for wrongful tax deposits. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund application was declared legally unsustainable and set aside. The petitioner's application for refund was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory 60-Day Limit Under Section 54(7) WBGST Act Crucial for Refund Orders; Timelines and Jurisdiction Strictly Enforced
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the 60-day time limit under Section 54(7) of the WBGST Act, 2017 for passing an order on a refund application is mandatory and any non-compliance vitiates the order passed under Section 54(5). The PO must consider the applicant's reply and provide an opportunity of hearing within this period. The scrutiny and acknowledgment of the refund application must be completed within 15 days as per Rule 90(2). The rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner and Appellate Authority was held unlawful as they exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning receipt of goods by the importer, which is irrelevant; the refund is contingent solely on payment of duties, evidenced by customs documents. The HC found the impugned orders and judgment legally flawed, set aside the judgment, and allowed the intra-court appeal due to the authorities' failure to adhere to mandatory timelines and exceed their statutory mandate.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST on Rice and Wheat Flour Now Based on Packaging Compliance, Not Brand Name Status
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that post 18 July 2022, the distinction between “Registered Brand Name” and “Brand Name” is abolished for GST purposes. Consequently, GST liability on commodities such as rice and wheat flour (atta), whether pre-packaged and labeled or not, must be determined solely based on compliance with the Legal Metrological Act regarding pre-packaging and labeling, irrespective of weight. The GST rate applicable to these commodities shall follow the notifications governing Central Tax (Rate), specifically Notification Nos. 01/2017, 27/2017, 06/2022, and 01/2025, as amended. The applicant's reliance on brand name status for exemption is therefore irrelevant, and GST applicability is contingent upon packaging and labeling criteria under the Legal Metrological Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Loading and Transport Services to SEZ Units Are Zero-Rated Under Section 16(1)(b) of IGST Act, 2017
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that services consisting of loading, transporting, stacking, and rack loading of bauxite provided to a SEZ unit qualify as cargo handling services integral to authorized operations. Such services supplied to a SEZ developer or unit are regarded as inter-state supplies and thereby classified as zero-rated supplies under Section 16(1)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the service provider is entitled to all benefits and conditions applicable to zero-rated supplies. The ruling confirms that these services are not subject to tax and fall within the scope of authorized operations permitted by the Department of Commerce, affirming their exemption status under GST law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

One-Day Delay in Filing Appeal Against Ex Parte Order Condoned Due to Holiday Falling on Deadline
Case-Laws
GST
The HC condoned a one-day delay in filing an appeal against an ex parte assessment order, which was originally due on a Sunday, a public holiday. The petitioner filed the appeal the following day, exceeding the prescribed period by one day. The respondent rejected the appeal for being time-barred. The HC found the reason for the delay genuine and held that the delay warranted condonation. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside, and the delay was formally condoned, allowing the appeal to proceed. The petition was disposed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 6(2)(b) bars multiple tax proceedings on the same matter under WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (2)(b)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 bar initiation of multiple proceedings on the same subject matter by different authorities. The petitioner faced three separate proceedings by State authorities for tax periods 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021 under Section 73, addressing claims of exempted supply and alleged suppression of facts. Central authorities also initiated proceedings for 2018-2022 based on audit observations regarding suppression of taxable value and unreconciled turnover. The Court found no scope for further audit under Section 65, noting that notices under Section 73 were already issued under Section 65(7). Since the issues had been adjudicated by competent authorities, the HC allowed the petition, restraining any additional proceedings on the same subject matter.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Alternative Remedy Exists Under Section 107 of the Act of 2017
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The petitioners' grievance, despite alleged violation of natural justice by the CGST authority for non-supply of relevant documents, must be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism. The court emphasized that it will not entertain a writ petition when an efficacious and speedy remedy exists under the statute. The time elapsed from filing the writ petition to disposal shall be excluded for the purpose of condoning any delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petition was accordingly disposed of, reinforcing the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not override specific appeal provisions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Applicant's supply not a “pure service” under Notification 12/2017 due to mixed goods and service charges
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant's supply does not constitute a “pure service” as defined under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, since the consideration received included both the procurement value of goods and service charges without segregation. The applicant failed to satisfy clause (d) of the relevant explanation, which requires distinct treatment of procurement costs separate from service charges to qualify as a pure agent. Consequently, the supply cannot be classified as a pure service, rendering the applicant ineligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 3 of the said notification. The ruling confirms that when goods and services are bundled without clear separation of values, the exemption for pure services does not apply.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Operations with permanent service setup and stored goods qualify as fixed establishment under GST Section 2(71)
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant's operations in Odisha, involving repair and maintenance services through Field Service Engineers and storage of spare parts and tool kits, constitute a fixed establishment rather than a temporary place. Given the permanence of the applicant's presence and storage of goods at the Odisha location for fulfilling maintenance contracts, the site qualifies as a fixed establishment under GST law. Consequently, the applicant is required to obtain GST registration in Odisha, as the place of supply of services is deemed to be the fixed establishment in that state, pursuant to the definition of “location of the supplier of services” under Section 2(71). This ruling mandates compliance with GST registration and tax obligations in Odisha for services rendered from the fixed establishment there.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Show Cause Notice to Deceased Proprietor Invalid Under Section 93; Notice Must Go to Legal Representative
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) to a deceased proprietor of a firm is impermissible, as section 93 contemplates liability only when the business continues or is discontinued post-death, and mandates issuance of notice to the legal representative. The provision does not authorize determination or recovery against a deceased individual. In the present case, since the SCN and determination were issued against the deceased without involving the legal representative, the actions were invalid. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the determination against the deceased proprietor was set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC Denied on Electricity for Township Maintenance and Exempt DCS Supplies Before 5-7-2022 Under Section 16(1) CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the petitioner is not entitled to ITC on electricity consumed for township maintenance, as such consumption is not in the course or furtherance of business under Section 16(1) of the CGST Act. ITC on exempt supply of DCS prior to 5-7-2022 was disallowed, as the sale of DCS was exempt and excluded from ITC eligibility. The amendment dated 5-7-2022, which excluded DCS from the aggregate value of exempt supplies, was held to be clarificatory in scope but not retrospective and thus does not entitle the petitioner to ITC before that date. ITC is a concession granted by statute and not a substantive right. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the writ petitions were denied, affirming that the petitioner cannot claim ITC on township electricity consumption or on exempt DCS supplies before the amendment's effective date.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail Denied Under Section 69 CGST Act for Fraudulent ITC Claims and GST Evasion of Rs. 57.82 Lakh
Case-Laws
GST
The DSC dismissed the bail application of the accused, a key partner of the manufacturing firm, arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act for clandestine supply of goods without invoicing and fraudulent availing of ITC. Investigation revealed extensive cash transactions amounting to approximately Rs. 70 crore, misuse of input tax credit exceeding Rs. 9.32 crore, and GST evasion of Rs. 57.82 lakh. The accused confessed to the offences, including receipt of cash payments and payment of commission for fraudulent invoices. Given the absence of a charge sheet, the likelihood of evidence tampering, witness influence, and risk of flight, the court found bail inappropriate. Considering the gravity of the economic offences and established legal principles, the accused was denied bail to prevent obstruction of justice and ensure accountability.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty upheld under Section 129(3) CGST Act for false E-Way Bill loading location despite no tax evasion intent
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the levy of penalty under section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, for violation of Rule 138 of the GST Rules, 2017. The petitioner's claim of no intent to evade tax was rejected due to discrepancies between the declared E-Way Bill loading point and the actual GPS-verified loading location. The vehicle's prolonged stay at Rupnarayanpur confirmed the goods were loaded contrary to the declared dispatch place. Although the petitioner paid the penalty and secured release of goods without protest, this did not constitute waiver of rights. The court found the adjudicating authority's material against the petitioner sufficient and held the petition as meritless and an afterthought, dismissing it in limine.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proceedings for Excess Stock Under GST Must Follow Sections 73/74, Not Section 130: Orders Quashed
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that initiation of proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act is impermissible where excess stock is found during a survey. Instead, proceedings must be initiated under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act for tax recovery. The Court emphasized that the law consistently mandates the use of sections 73/74 in such cases, rejecting invocation of section 130 read with the relevant rules. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Commissioner were quashed as unsustainable in law. The petition was allowed, clarifying that assessment and recovery in cases of excess stock found during survey must proceed exclusively under sections 73/74, not section 130.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order set aside for ignoring petitioner's reply; case remanded for fresh consideration under natural justice principles
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Patna-II, holding that the petitioner's reply was not duly considered, resulting in a violation of natural justice. The authority determined service tax liability due to the petitioner's failure to furnish work agreements and payment certificates for specified items, but did not issue a further show cause notice to allow submission of such documents. The Court found this omission procedurally unfair and interfered with the order, remanding the matter to the concerned authority for fresh consideration in accordance with principles of natural justice. 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

= = = = = = = =

Transitional GST Credit Allowed Despite Initial Tran-3 Form Filing Issues Under Excise Act Provisions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's transitional credit and related demands arising from the failure to upload the Tran-3 Form during the initial GST transition period. The petitioner was entitled to file fresh Tran Forms within the prescribed window, which they duly did. The respondents' reliance on the circular to deny this opportunity was held to be incorrect, particularly as the adjudication on the Tran Forms had not concluded before the window closed. The credit sought was undisputedly available under the Excise Act, and the adjudication issue related solely to the filing of the Tran-3 Form, which did not fall under the relevant guidelines restricting such filings. Consequently, any demands raised on account of the rejected transition credit were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST and penalty upheld for failing to upload Part B of E-Way Bill under Section 129 and Rule 138 violations
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the levy of GST and penalty on the petitioner for failing to generate and upload Part B of the E-Way bill, specifically the vehicle details, in violation of Section 129 of the GST Act and Rule 138 of the CGST Rules. The Court affirmed that the primary responsibility to generate Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 lies with the registered person initiating the movement of goods exceeding Rs. 50,000 in value. The petitioner's contention that the transporter was liable to complete Part B was rejected. The petitioner failed to generate Part B before transporting goods valued at Rs. 7,62,247 over 800 km, rendering the Part A invalid and non-compliant. The delay of three days in updating Part B was held as a substantial violation, not a minor error. Consequently, the impugned order imposing GST and penalty was affirmed, and the petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Regular Bail Granted Under Section 132 CGST Act Despite Ongoing Co-Accused Investigations, Emphasizing Individual Assessment
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted regular bail to the petitioners charged under Section 132 of the CGST Act, rejecting the denial of bail solely due to pending investigation against co-accused. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must be individualized, considering the accused's specific role, nature of accusations, evidence, and other relevant factors. The petitioners demonstrated clean antecedents, cooperation with the investigation, and the evidence primarily consisted of documentary and electronic material already with the agency. Consequently, the petitioners were ordered released on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to compliance with imposed conditions. The ruling reaffirmed that bail cannot be withheld merely because investigations continue against others implicated in the same complaint.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST & Central Excise Raigad Commissionerate arrests two persons for fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit of Rs. 9 crore through shell firms in New Panvel, Raigad, Mumbai Zone
GST
Dated:- 2-8-2025

A team of officers of Anti-Evasion, CGST & Central Excise Raigad Commissionerate, Mumbai Zone, yesterday arrested two persons involved in generating and fraudulently passing on Input tax Credit (ITC) of more than Rs. 9 crore by creating fictitious firms and issuing invoices without actual supply of goods/service.
Acting upon intelligence, the team identified the shell firms being operated by the accused to avail and pass on fake ITC. M/s. Jaisha Metals Private Limited availed ineligible credit passed on by non-existent firms regist

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty under Section 129(3) of GST Act set aside due to vehicle breakdown causing delay in e-way bill re-validation
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for failure to re-validate the e-way bill within the prescribed 8-hour period, accepting the petitioner's claim of vehicle breakdown causing a 15-hour delay. The Court noted the absence of wilful misconduct or tax fraud and found the appellate authority erred in dismissing the defence for lack of documentary evidence, given the circumstances of mechanical repair en route. Consequently, the orders dated 27 December 2023 and 29 August 2024 imposing the penalty and demand were quashed. The petitioners, having already paid the penalty, are entitled to seek a refund, which the authorities must consider within two weeks of application. 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

= = = = = = = =

Proceedings Under Section 130 Not Allowed for Excess Stock Discovery; Use Sections 73 or 74 Instead
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that initiation of proceedings under section 130 of the UPGST Act based on the discovery of excess stock during a survey is impermissible. The Court reaffirmed that such findings warrant proceedings under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act instead, as section 130 is not applicable in cases of excess stock. Consequently, the impugned order initiating proceedings under section 130 was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed, clarifying that enforcement actions under section 130 cannot be invoked solely on the basis of excess stock detected during a survey.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Dismissed for Delay Under Section 107(1) GST Act; Appellate Authority to Reconsider ITC Issues
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, declining to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The petition challenged the disallowance of ITC on grounds that the supplier failed to discharge tax liability by filing GSTR-3B returns for supplies made during August to November 2019. The court held that the Assessing Authority's demand, based on examination of records under Section 74, was proper. Questions regarding the recipient's entitlement to ITC despite the supplier's non-compliance are factual and legal issues reserved for the appellate authority under Section 107, which is empowered to reappreciate evidence. The petitioner was permitted to pursue remedy before the appellate forum, and the court clarified that discussion of facts was not an opinion on merits. 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

= = = = = = = =