Author: admin_gst

Pharmaceutical Exporter Wins IGST Refund Claim, Court Orders Immediate Manual Processing Despite Technical Challenges
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld Petitioner's entitlement to IGST refund for pharmaceutical product exports from July 2017 to April 2018. Despite technical processing challenges acknowledged by Respondents, the court mandated manual refund processing within two weeks, consistent with the earlier Refund Sanctioning Order. The technical impediment was deemed insufficient to obstruct the Petitioner's legitimate refund claim. Petition was consequently disposed of, directing immediate compliance by Respondents.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC grants interim stay on Rs 2,500 crore GST demand against Hindustan Coco-Cola Beverages
GST
Dated:- 4-4-2025
PTI
Mumbai, Apr 4 (PTI) The Bombay High Court has granted an interim stay on a GST demand of approximately Rs 2,500 crore against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited noting the revenue department's interpretation of the provisions appeared “prima facie incorrect”.
The show cause notice was issued in January based on findings that the company undervalued goods over seven assessment years by offering retrospective discounts to distributors.
As per the authorities, the discounts were structured in a way that reduced the taxable value of the supplies.
Distributors first extended discounts to retailers, and Coca

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory on Case Sensitivity in IRN Generation
GST
Dated:- 4-4-2025

Dear Taxpayer,
1. This is to inform you that, effective 1st June 2025, the IRP (Invoice Reporting Portal) would treat invoice/document numbers as case-insensitive for the purpose of IRN generation.
2. To ensure consistency and avoid duplication, invoice numbers reported in any format (e.g., “abc”, “ABC”, or “Abc”) would be automatically converted to uppercase before IRN generation. This change aligns with the trea

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Available on Employer's Share of Mandatory Canteen Services Under Factories Act
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR ruled that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is available to the applicant for GST charged on food and beverages provided through mandatory canteen facilities under the Factories Act, 1948, read with Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963. This eligibility applies specifically to canteen services for factory employees where such provision is obligatory under law. However, the ITC is limited strictly to the portion of the cost borne by the applicant company, excluding any contribution made by employees. This ruling creates a specific exception to the general restriction on ITC for food and beverages by recognizing the statutory obligation to provide canteen facilities.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods Delivered Under Fraudulent Orders Still Constitute “Supply” Under Section 7 of CGST Act Despite Non-Payment
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR ruled that goods supplied by the applicant, despite being a victim of fraud without receiving consideration, still constituted a “supply” under GST law. The authority determined that while fraud may vitiate a contract, it does not negate the statutory definition of “supply” under section 7 of the CGST Act. The facts established that goods were physically removed and received at the destination, as confirmed by the FIR. The AAR concluded that the transaction qualified as supply of goods under section 20 of the IGST Act read with sections 12 and 7 of the CGST Act, regardless of the fraudulent nature of the order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rice Husk Board with PVC Resin Cannot Be Classified Under Chapter 44 of GST Tariff
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR dismissed an application seeking classification of rice husk board (containing rice husk powder, calcium carbonate, recycled waste, processing aids, and PVC resin as a bonding agent) under Chapter 44 of the GST tariff. The authority found the application unmaintainable for several reasons: the submission appeared to be an exact reproduction of a previous ruling (M/s. Papaka Herbs & Spices Private Ltd.), the submitted test report from a NABL-accredited laboratory contained parameters not covered under NABL accreditation, the report lacked reference to BIS standards, and the applicant failed to provide supporting documentation such as brochures, purchase invoices for inputs, or sales invoices.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Businesses Can Apply Margin Scheme for Second-Hand Goods While Maintaining Regular GST Procedures for Other Operations Under Rule 32(5)
Case-Laws
GST
AAR ruled that businesses can utilize Rule 32(5) valuation (margin scheme) for second-hand goods while maintaining regular valuation for existing operations. Taxpayers may selectively apply this scheme to purchases from unregistered dealers while using standard GST procedures for registered dealer purchases. Under the margin scheme, the taxable value is the difference between selling price and purchase price, excluding repair/improvement costs. When using this scheme, input tax credit cannot be claimed on either purchase price or repair costs. Purchases of second-hand goods from unregistered dealers are exempt from reverse charge mechanism for intra-state supplies under Notification No. 10/2017-CT(R).
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Denied for Concrete Tower Construction Supporting Manufacturing Lines Under Section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR ruled that the applicant cannot avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) on inputs and services used for constructing a concrete tower to support VCV lines for manufacturing EHV cables. Applying the Supreme Court's functionality test from Safari Retreats, the AAR determined that while a building may qualify as “plant” under Section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act, ITC is unavailable when construction is for the recipient's own use. The AAR found the applicant failed to prove the construction was not on their own account, breaking the ITC chain. The authority dismissed the applicant's reliance on various judgments as irrelevant, noting they primarily pertained to Income Tax matters rather than GST provisions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Officer Appointed Under Karnataka GST Act Qualifies as Proper Officer Under IGST Act Through Cross-Empowerment Provisions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that an officer appointed under Section 6 of the Karnataka GST Act qualifies as a proper officer under Section 4 of the IGST Act through cross-empowerment provisions. The court determined that challenges to confiscation orders passed under Section 130 must proceed through statutory appeal mechanisms under Section 107 of KGST rather than writ petitions, following precedents from SC decisions in Falcon Enterprises and Commercial Steel Ltd. The petition was deemed not entertainable due to the existence of alternative statutory remedy. The court disposed of the petition while granting the petitioner 4 weeks to file an appeal under Section 107 KGST read with Section 20 IGST.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Free Scraping Tool with Apsara Oil Pastels Constitutes Mixed Supply Under Section 2(74), Taxable at 18% GST (74)
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR determined that the inclusion of a free scraping tool with Apsara Oil Pastels constitutes a “mixed supply” under section 2(74) of the CGST Act, 2017, rather than a composite supply. The authority rejected the applicant's contention that the scraping tool was merely an accessory, finding that the two products were not integral to each other's function. Since the products were supplied together for a single price, section 8(b) of the CGST Act applies, requiring taxation at the higher applicable rate between the two items. Consequently, the entire “Apsara Oil Pastels with Free Scraping Tool” package was classified under HSN 3926, attracting GST at 18% in accordance with entry no. 111 of Schedule-III.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Investment Firm Cannot Claim Input Tax Credit on Mutual Fund Transactions Under Section 17(2)
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR ruled that the applicant is not eligible to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) on tax paid for inputs and input services related to mutual fund subscription and redemption activities. The Authority rejected the applicant's contention that redemption of mutual funds differs from sale of securities, clarifying that redemption constitutes a sale transaction regardless of nomenclature, as it involves cessation of ownership by the unit holder. Consequently, the applicant must reverse ITC on common inputs and input services used for mutual fund subscription and redemption activities in accordance with Section 17(2). The applicant's argument regarding lack of statutory machinery provisions to calculate exempt supply value was also dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

No GST Payable on Gas Lost During Transit, But Input Tax Credit Must Be Reversed Under Section 16(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR ruled that no GST is payable on goods (gas) lost during transit as no supply occurred, since the loss happened before delivery to the customer and prior to the place and time of supply being established. However, the applicant must reverse Input Tax Credit (ITC) on inputs used in manufacturing the goods subsequently lost in transit. The authority determined that such inputs fail the “proper end use” condition under Section 16(1) of CGST Act, as they were not ultimately used in furtherance of business through a taxable outward supply. The ITC reversal is required under Section 17(5)(h) read with Section 16, as the goods were lost/destroyed during transit.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Condonation of Delay in GST Returns Filing Beyond 30-Day Period Under Section 62(2) Granted While Preserving Late Fees
Case-Laws
GST
HC condoned the delay in filing GST returns beyond the 30-day period specified in Section 62(2) of the GST Act, 2017, following the precedent established in Comfort Shoe Components case. While granting relief, the Court preserved the respondent's authority to impose applicable late fees for the delayed period. The petitioner was directed to file a formal application for condonation of delay before the respondent within 15 days from receipt of the order. The petition was accordingly disposed of, balancing taxpayer relief with regulatory compliance by maintaining the statutory consequence of late filing while removing the procedural bar.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Demand Against Deceased Invalid Without Show Cause Notice to Legal Representative Under Section 93
Case-Laws
GST
The HC ruled that a GST demand against a deceased individual without issuing a show cause notice to their legal representative is invalid. While Section 93 of the GST Act addresses the liability of legal representatives to pay tax, interest, or penalties after a proprietor's death, it does not authorize determinations against deceased persons. The court held that issuing notice to and seeking response from the legal representative is a prerequisite before making any determination. Consequently, the determination made against the deceased without proper notice to the legal representative was unsustainable and the petition was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Gujarat Maritime Board Dredging Services Not Eligible for Exemption Under N/N 9/2017-IT (Rate) as Amended
Case-Laws
GST
The applicant sought ruling on eligibility for exemption under serial No. 3A of N/N. 9/2017-IT (Rate) as amended by N/N. 2/2018-IT (Rate) regarding dredging services supplied to Gujarat Maritime Board. The AAR determined that while Gujarat Maritime Board is a body corporate, the term “government entity” has been omitted from the exemption notification. The AAR ruled that the applicant is not eligible for the benefit claimed under the exemption notification. The Authority also noted that in accordance with Section 103 of the CGST Act, 2017, this advance ruling is binding only on the applicant who sought it.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Not Available for Share Buyback Expenditure Under GST as Securities Fall Outside Supply Definition
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR ruled that a listed entity is not eligible to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) on expenditure incurred for buyback of its shares. The authority determined that buyback of shares is neither a supply of goods nor services, as “securities” are explicitly excluded from both definitions under CGST Act. Since section 16(1) permits ITC only on supply of goods or services used in course of business, the primary condition for ITC availment is not satisfied. The applicant's argument that such expenditure furthers business activity becomes irrelevant once the threshold requirement fails. The AAR concluded that the applicant must reverse ITC on common inputs and input services related to share buyback expenditure.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment Order Without Officer's Signature and DIN Ruled Invalid Under GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC invalidated a GST assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 due to two fatal defects: absence of the assessing officer's signature and missing Document Identification Number (DIN). Following precedents established in A.V. Bhanoji Row and M/s. SRK Enterprises, the Court affirmed that an officer's signature cannot be dispensed with, and Sections 160 and 169 of CGST Act, 2017 cannot rectify such deficiency. Regarding the DIN requirement, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal, which held that orders without DIN numbers are non-est and invalid, consistent with CBIC circulars. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was set aside and the petition disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Taxpayer Granted Two Weeks to File Rectification Application Under Section 161 of TN GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of the writ petitions, granting the petitioner liberty to file a rectification application under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 before the second respondent within two weeks of receiving the order. The Court determined that statutory remedy was available to the petitioner through the rectification process. If such application is filed within the stipulated timeframe, the second respondent must entertain and dispose of the matter according to law within one month, after providing the petitioner an opportunity for hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Limitation Period for Returns After GST Best Judgment Assessment Is Directory, Not Mandatory Under Section 62(2)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC ruled that the 60-day limitation period under Section 62(2) of the GST Act for filing returns after a best judgment assessment is directory rather than mandatory. If an assessee fails to file returns within this period due to reasons beyond their control, authorities may condone the delay upon application with sufficient justification. The taxpayer would then be permitted to file returns after paying applicable interest, penalties, and charges. The Court held that the right to file returns cannot be categorically denied based solely on non-compliance with the 60-day timeframe. The petitioner was directed to file a delay condonation application within 15 days.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Appeal Partly Allowed: Court Sets Aside Automatic Restoration Clause, Grants Time for Reply with Jurisdictional Defenses
Case-Laws
GST
The HC partly allowed the writ appeal against an impugned order that exceeded the amount specified in the Show Cause Notice (SCN). While the court acknowledged potential violations of natural justice principles regarding jurisdiction and limitation, it determined these issues required factual examination by the respondent authority. The HC set aside the Single Judge's observation regarding automatic restoration of the order if no reply was filed within three weeks. Instead, the appellant was granted four weeks from judgment receipt to submit their reply, with explicit permission to raise both limitation and jurisdictional defenses before the respondent authority.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Revenue Department Must Grant Personal Hearing Before Recovery of Excess ITC Under Section 75(4) of CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed and set aside the impugned order-in-original regarding recovery of alleged excess ITC, finding it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The respondent authority failed to grant the petitioners a personal hearing before passing an adverse order. The matter was remanded for fresh de novo proceedings, directing the authority to provide the petitioners an opportunity to reconcile Form GSTR 2A with Form GSTR 3B for the period under consideration. The court ordered completion of this exercise within 12 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 Assessment Order Challenged as Non-Speaking: Petitioner Granted Liberty to Appeal Under Section 75(6)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of the petition challenging a GST assessment order characterized as non-speaking and violative of Section 75(6) of the GST Act. Rather than adjudicating on merits, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) within two weeks, directing the appellate authority to entertain the appeal without reference to limitation periods and dispose of it within three months. The Court ordered status quo to be maintained in the interim. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds from the writ petition in the appeal, including violations of natural justice principles and the non-speaking nature of the impugned order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Penalties Reversed: Authority Must Compensate Hindu Undivided Family for Wrongful Tax Head Deposit
Case-Laws
GST
The HC issued a writ of mandamus directing NOIDA to compensate the petitioner, head of a Hindu Undivided Family, Rs. 19,22,778/- within 15 days for penalties imposed under the GST Act. NOIDA had acknowledged that the petitioner's GST payment was deposited under the wrong head due to their error, not the petitioner's fault. Following the Supreme Court's principle in Batliboi that compensation should not result in windfall for one party at another's expense, the court determined the petitioner should not suffer penalties for NOIDA's administrative mistake. NOIDA must notify the District Magistrate after payment and retains the right to recover the amount from its erring officers. Petition disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Amnesty Scheme Under Section 128(A) Offers Relief from Interest and Penalties for Section 73 Notices
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to respondent No.5 for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law. This decision stemmed from the petitioner's intention to avail benefits under the Amnesty Scheme provided in Section 128(A) of the CGST Act, which offers waiver of interest and penalties for notices issued under Section 73. The Court deemed it just and appropriate to allow the petition through remand, issuing specific directions to guide the respondent's reconsideration of the matter in light of the petitioner's eligibility for amnesty benefits concerning interest and penalty waivers.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Non-bailable warrants quashed in GST evasion case as accused previously cooperated with investigation and authorities.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner accused of GST evasion through fake firms. The court held that non-bailable warrants should only be issued when an accused fails to appear after service of summons or bailable warrants. In this case, the petitioner had previously cooperated with the investigation, appeared before authorities, and provided statements. The court converted the non-bailable warrants to bailable warrants, noting that the petitioner showed no likelihood of evading legal process. Applying the principle from Tarsem Lal and Sharif Ahmed precedents, the HC emphasized that courts must consider whether an accused is likely to evade justice or tamper with evidence before issuing non-bailable warrants. The presumption of innocence was also affirmed as a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =