Author: admin_gst

Stock Discrepancies During GST Survey Cannot Trigger Section 130 Penalty Without Following Sections 73/74 Assessment Process

Stock Discrepancies During GST Survey Cannot Trigger Section 130 Penalty Without Following Sections 73/74 Assessment ProcessCase-LawsGSTHC quashed orders imposing tax and penalty under section 130 of GST Act arising from stock discrepancies discovered dur

Stock Discrepancies During GST Survey Cannot Trigger Section 130 Penalty Without Following Sections 73/74 Assessment Process
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed orders imposing tax and penalty under section 130 of GST Act arising from stock discrepancies discovered during business premises survey. Following established precedents, the Court held that mere stock discrepancies identified during survey warrant proceedings under sections 73/74 rather than section 130 of GST Act. The authority's direct invocation of section 130 was deemed legally unsustainable. The impugned orders dated 02.04.2024 by Additional Commissioner and 10.09.2018 read with 05.08.2020 by respondent authority were set aside, with the petition being allowed in favor of the registered dealer.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commission Agents Need GST Registration Only When Serving Taxable Principals and Making Taxable Supplies Under Section 24(vii)

Commission Agents Need GST Registration Only When Serving Taxable Principals and Making Taxable Supplies Under Section 24(vii)CircularsGSTCBIC clarified mandatory GST registration requirements for commission agents under Section 24(vii) of CGST Act. Commi

Commission Agents Need GST Registration Only When Serving Taxable Principals and Making Taxable Supplies Under Section 24(vii)
Circulars
GST
CBIC clarified mandatory GST registration requirements for commission agents under Section 24(vii) of CGST Act. Commission agents must register only when serving taxable principals and making taxable supplies. Agents representing agriculturists are exempt from mandatory registration since agriculturists supplying cultivation produce are not taxable persons under Section 23(1)(b). However, commission agents liable under reverse charge mechanism must mandatorily register per Section 24(iii). This corrigendum modifies Circular 57/31/2018-GST to clarify the dual conditions for mandatory registration and specific exemption for agents of agriculturists.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mentioning SAP Number Instead of Tax Invoice in E-way Bill Deemed Human Error, No Penalty Under Section 129

Mentioning SAP Number Instead of Tax Invoice in E-way Bill Deemed Human Error, No Penalty Under Section 129Case-LawsGSTHC held that mentioning SAP document number instead of tax invoice number in e-way bill during transport from Mathura to Mirzapur was a

Mentioning SAP Number Instead of Tax Invoice in E-way Bill Deemed Human Error, No Penalty Under Section 129
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that mentioning SAP document number instead of tax invoice number in e-way bill during transport from Mathura to Mirzapur was a genuine human error. Physical verification revealed no discrepancies in quality, quantity, or goods description between tax invoice and actual shipment. Authorities failed to establish any intention of tax evasion, which is essential for penalty imposition under Section 129 of GST Act. The technical mismatch alone cannot justify penalty proceedings when substantive compliance is evident. The court found impugned orders unsustainable, emphasizing that mere clerical errors, absent fraudulent intent, do not warrant punitive action. Petition allowed, setting aside tax and penalty orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Holographic Excise Stickers Classified as Goods Under GST Section 2(52), Not Services; Refund Approved for RCM Payments

Holographic Excise Stickers Classified as Goods Under GST Section 2(52), Not Services; Refund Approved for RCM PaymentsCase-LawsGSTHC determined that holographic stickers supplied by the Prohibition and Excise Department constitute “goods” under Section 2

Holographic Excise Stickers Classified as Goods Under GST Section 2(52), Not Services; Refund Approved for RCM Payments
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that holographic stickers supplied by the Prohibition and Excise Department constitute “goods” under Section 2(52) of GST laws, not services. The supply cannot be classified as a “composite supply” with excise licensing. The petitioner's previous RCM tax payments were made erroneously, as the stickers are not taxable supplies under Section 2(108). The court rejected the respondents' estoppel argument, affirming that tax principles are not bound by past practices. The second respondent must process refund claims under Section 54 of GST Acts and Rule 89 of GST rules within 3 months. The petition was allowed, granting refund of GST paid under reverse charge mechanism for holographic sticker procurement.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Absence of E-Tax Invoice Due to GST Portal Glitch Cannot Justify Detention or Penalties When Physical Documents Exist

Absence of E-Tax Invoice Due to GST Portal Glitch Cannot Justify Detention or Penalties When Physical Documents ExistCase-LawsGSTHC determined that detention of goods and penalties imposed for missing e-tax invoice were unjustified. While physical tax inv

Absence of E-Tax Invoice Due to GST Portal Glitch Cannot Justify Detention or Penalties When Physical Documents Exist
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that detention of goods and penalties imposed for missing e-tax invoice were unjustified. While physical tax invoice, e-way bill, and bilty accompanied the goods with accurate descriptions and quantities, the e-tax invoice was absent due to technical issues with GST portal. The authorities failed to establish any intent to evade tax payments. The petitioner's explanation regarding technical glitch remained undisputed. Following precedents where deficiencies noted in show cause notices were rectified before detention orders, the court held that penalties were unwarranted when no tax evasion was proven. The impugned order was set aside and the petition was allowed, establishing that technical non-compliance without fraudulent intent does not merit punitive action.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Officials Cannot Penalize Missing State E-way Bill During Feb-Mar 2018 Under Section 129(3) UPGST Act

Tax Officials Cannot Penalize Missing State E-way Bill During Feb-Mar 2018 Under Section 129(3) UPGST ActCase-LawsGSTHC quashed proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act 2017 regarding goods intercepted without state E-way bill. While tax in

Tax Officials Cannot Penalize Missing State E-way Bill During Feb-Mar 2018 Under Section 129(3) UPGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act 2017 regarding goods intercepted without state E-way bill. While tax invoice, Central E-way bill and builty accompanied the goods, state E-way bill was absent. Following precedents in similar cases, HC held that during 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, E-way bill requirement under UPGST Act was not enforceable. Therefore, seizure proceedings against petitioner were without jurisdiction. The impugned orders were unsustainable in law as the requirement for state E-way bill documentation had not come into force during the relevant period. Petition allowed with proceedings quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Unsigned GST Assessment Order Invalid: Signature Requirement Mandatory Under CGST Act Sections 160 & 169

Unsigned GST Assessment Order Invalid: Signature Requirement Mandatory Under CGST Act Sections 160 & 169Case-LawsGSTHC set aside GST assessment order due to absence of assessing officer’s signature, holding it as a fatal procedural defect. The court d

Unsigned GST Assessment Order Invalid: Signature Requirement Mandatory Under CGST Act Sections 160 & 169
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside GST assessment order due to absence of assessing officer's signature, holding it as a fatal procedural defect. The court determined that signature requirement cannot be dispensed with and such defect cannot be rectified under Sections 160 & 169 of CGST Act, 2017. While invalidating the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, HC granted liberty to tax authority to conduct fresh assessment after proper notice and ensuring signed order. The ruling emphasizes mandatory procedural compliance in tax assessment proceedings, specifically the necessity of authorized signature on assessment orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Assessment Order Quashed: Officer Failed to Follow Section 74 Guidelines and Determine Liability Under GST Act

Tax Assessment Order Quashed: Officer Failed to Follow Section 74 Guidelines and Determine Liability Under GST ActCase-LawsGSTHC quashed assessment order due to procedural non-compliance under Section 74 of TN GST Act, 2017. AO failed to determine tax lia

Tax Assessment Order Quashed: Officer Failed to Follow Section 74 Guidelines and Determine Liability Under GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed assessment order due to procedural non-compliance under Section 74 of TN GST Act, 2017. AO failed to determine tax liability and disregarded Commissioner's circular guidelines, rendering order arbitrary. Court found fundamental procedural lapses in assessment methodology, violating statutory requirements for tax determination. Matter remanded to assessing authority for de novo consideration in accordance with prescribed procedures and guidelines. AO directed to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass fresh order following statutory framework.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayers Can Claim GST Input Tax Credit for 2017-21 if GSTR-3B Filed by November 2021 Under Section 16(5)

Taxpayers Can Claim GST Input Tax Credit for 2017-21 if GSTR-3B Filed by November 2021 Under Section 16(5)Case-LawsGSTHC allowed petition regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims under GST regime. Following precedent in Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries case,

Taxpayers Can Claim GST Input Tax Credit for 2017-21 if GSTR-3B Filed by November 2021 Under Section 16(5)
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed petition regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims under GST regime. Following precedent in Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries case, court held that retrospective amendment to Section 16 of CGST Act by insertion of sub-section (5) enables taxpayers to claim ITC for FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 if GSTR-3B returns were filed by November 30, 2021. Department's order dated February 26, 2021 denying ITC based on Section 16(4) limitation was quashed. Court restrained authorities from initiating proceedings against petitioner on limitation grounds, recognizing extended timeline under Section 16(5). Decision affirms legislative intent to provide relief through retrospective amendment effective from July 1, 2017.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Appeal Delay of 142 Days Condoned After Late Physical Service of Notice Despite Portal Upload

GST Appeal Delay of 142 Days Condoned After Late Physical Service of Notice Despite Portal UploadCase-LawsGSTHC condoned 142-day delay in filing GST appeal where appellant demonstrated reasonable cause due to belated service of demand notice. While notice

GST Appeal Delay of 142 Days Condoned After Late Physical Service of Notice Despite Portal Upload
Case-Laws
GST
HC condoned 142-day delay in filing GST appeal where appellant demonstrated reasonable cause due to belated service of demand notice. While notice was uploaded on GST portal, physical copy was only served on 16.04.2024. Court determined delayed physical service constituted sufficient grounds for condonation, setting aside appellate authority's original order rejecting appeal. Delay condoned under principles of reasonable cause and procedural fairness, acknowledging distinction between portal upload and actual service of notice. Original appellate order vacated, allowing appellant to proceed with substantive appeal on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Order Under Section 16(4) CGST Act Set Aside Due To Procedural Non-Compliance And Lack Of Fair Hearing

Input Tax Credit Order Under Section 16(4) CGST Act Set Aside Due To Procedural Non-Compliance And Lack Of Fair HearingCase-LawsGSTHC set aside respondent’s order concerning input tax credit under Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017. The matter was remanded b

Input Tax Credit Order Under Section 16(4) CGST Act Set Aside Due To Procedural Non-Compliance And Lack Of Fair Hearing
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside respondent's order concerning input tax credit under Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017. The matter was remanded back to respondent No.7 for fresh consideration in accordance with amended Section 16 provisions. The authority must provide petitioner opportunity for hearing and issue new determination within two months from certified order copy production. Court's intervention focused on procedural compliance and fair hearing requirements under GST framework, particularly regarding time extension for passing orders under Section 73 and proper adjudication of input tax credit claims.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancelled Under Section 29(2)(e) After Business Failed to Prove Actual Premises Occupancy

GST Registration Cancelled Under Section 29(2)(e) After Business Failed to Prove Actual Premises OccupancyCase-LawsGSTHC upheld cancellation of petitioner’s registration under Section 29(2)(e) due to fraudulent misrepresentation of business premises. Desp

GST Registration Cancelled Under Section 29(2)(e) After Business Failed to Prove Actual Premises Occupancy
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld cancellation of petitioner's registration under Section 29(2)(e) due to fraudulent misrepresentation of business premises. Despite presenting electricity bills and leave/license agreement, petitioner failed to substantiate actual occupancy through proof of license fee payments or utility charges. Petitioner's inaction in responding to show cause notice, non-appearance before appellate authority, and failure to challenge Bureau of Investigation's spot visit findings proved detrimental. Court found proper officer's inference plausible based on available evidence. The registration cancellation order was deemed neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence, leading to dismissal of writ petition challenging the cancellation order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Officer’s CGST Act Arrest Invalidated After Driver Signs Memo Instead of Family Member, Violating D.K. Basu Guidelines

Officer’s CGST Act Arrest Invalidated After Driver Signs Memo Instead of Family Member, Violating D.K. Basu GuidelinesCase-LawsGSTHC invalidated an arrest under CGST Act 2017 due to procedural violations. While proper documentation including arrest memo,

Officer's CGST Act Arrest Invalidated After Driver Signs Memo Instead of Family Member, Violating D.K. Basu Guidelines
Case-Laws
GST
HC invalidated an arrest under CGST Act 2017 due to procedural violations. While proper documentation including arrest memo, medical records and grounds for arrest were maintained, the arrest memo was improperly attested by a driver rather than a family member or local resident as required by official instructions and D.K. Basu guidelines. The arresting officer provided no explanation for this non-compliance. The court determined this was not a mere irregularity but a substantive violation that vitiated the entire arrest. Given the illegal nature of the arrest, the court granted bail to the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Electronic Service of Notices Under Central Excise Act Valid Through CGST Act Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c)

Electronic Service of Notices Under Central Excise Act Valid Through CGST Act Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c)Case-LawsGSTHC held that electronic service of notices under Central Excise Act 1944 is permissible through application of CGST Act provisions. R

Electronic Service of Notices Under Central Excise Act Valid Through CGST Act Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that electronic service of notices under Central Excise Act 1944 is permissible through application of CGST Act provisions. Reading Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c) of CGST Act together enables electronic service modes for existing laws including 1944 Act, despite Section 37C being silent on email service. Court rejected petitioner's argument against electronic notice validity and distinguished prior CESTAT precedent as inapplicable. Directed petitioner to pursue statutory appeal remedy with delay condonation application, excluding court proceedings duration from limitation period. Time spent before court would not count towards appeal limitation. Petition disposed of with directions to appellate authority to consider appeal per law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancellation Order Quashed: Lack of Mandatory Reasoning Violates Administrative Law and Constitutional Rights

GST Registration Cancellation Order Quashed: Lack of Mandatory Reasoning Violates Administrative Law and Constitutional RightsCase-LawsGSTHC quashed the GST registration cancellation order dated 06.04.2021 issued by Asst Commissioner. The order lacked man

GST Registration Cancellation Order Quashed: Lack of Mandatory Reasoning Violates Administrative Law and Constitutional Rights
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed the GST registration cancellation order dated 06.04.2021 issued by Asst Commissioner. The order lacked mandatory reasoning for cancellation, violating fundamental principles of administrative law and Art 14 of Constitution. Though petitioner's appeal was dismissed for limitation under s.107(4) UPGST Act, doctrine of merger was found inapplicable. Court emphasized that reasons constitute the essence of judicial and administrative orders, without which such orders cannot be legally sustained. The registration cancellation, being a severe action, required clear justification. The impugned order was set aside for lack of application of mind and absence of reasoning.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Government Entity Must Pay Differential GST Amount After Rate Increase from 12% to 18% Following Apex Structure Precedent

Government Entity Must Pay Differential GST Amount After Rate Increase from 12% to 18% Following Apex Structure PrecedentCase-LawsGSTThe HC addressed the dispute regarding differential GST liability payment. Following precedent established in M/s Apex Str

Government Entity Must Pay Differential GST Amount After Rate Increase from 12% to 18% Following Apex Structure Precedent
Case-Laws
GST
The HC addressed the dispute regarding differential GST liability payment. Following precedent established in M/s Apex Structure case, the court affirmed that GST rate enhancement from 12% to 18% was lawfully applicable and payable by the government entity (respondent). The ruling upheld the state GST department's position on increased tax rate applicability. The decision reinforces the binding nature of revised GST rates on government entities and their obligation to remit the differential amount. The court's determination aligns with established GST jurisprudence regarding rate revisions and statutory compliance requirements for public sector undertakings. Petition disposed of with clear directive on GST differential payment obligation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment Order on Security Wages Treatment Set Aside Due to Lack of Specific Notice and Natural Justice Violation

Assessment Order on Security Wages Treatment Set Aside Due to Lack of Specific Notice and Natural Justice ViolationCase-LawsGSTHC partially set aside assessment order concerning disputed “Security Wages” treatment, finding procedural deficiency as this is

Assessment Order on Security Wages Treatment Set Aside Due to Lack of Specific Notice and Natural Justice Violation
Case-Laws
GST
HC partially set aside assessment order concerning disputed “Security Wages” treatment, finding procedural deficiency as this issue was not specifically mentioned in show cause notice which only referenced “Administration Expenses.” Court determined petitioner was denied natural justice by not receiving opportunity for personal hearing on security wages matter. Order remanded to respondent for fresh consideration specifically regarding security wages component. While granting liberty to file appeal on remaining assessment issues, HC cautioned against piecemeal appeals. Original assessment dated 30.08.2024 remains valid on all other aspects pending potential comprehensive appeal by petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appellate Authority Under GST Can Condone Delay Beyond One Month Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act 1963

Appellate Authority Under GST Can Condone Delay Beyond One Month Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act 1963Case-LawsGSTHC held that Appellate Authority under West Bengal GST Act 2017 has power to condone delay beyond one month of prescribed appeal period. Whi

Appellate Authority Under GST Can Condone Delay Beyond One Month Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act 1963
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that Appellate Authority under West Bengal GST Act 2017 has power to condone delay beyond one month of prescribed appeal period. While appeal was dismissed for being time-barred, petitioner could invoke Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 for delay condonation. Following precedent in S.K. Chakraborty matter, Court found Appellate Authority should have considered explanation provided in delay condonation application. Given sufficient cause shown by petitioner and to avoid futile remand proceedings, HC accepted the delay explanation and disposed of petition, allowing appeal to proceed on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Technical Error in Auto-Populated Shipping Address on E-Way Bill Cannot Justify GST Seizure or Penalty

Technical Error in Auto-Populated Shipping Address on E-Way Bill Cannot Justify GST Seizure or PenaltyCase-LawsGSTHC held that a technical error in shipping address on an auto-populated e-way bill cannot justify seizure or penalty under GST law. The e-way

Technical Error in Auto-Populated Shipping Address on E-Way Bill Cannot Justify GST Seizure or Penalty
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that a technical error in shipping address on an auto-populated e-way bill cannot justify seizure or penalty under GST law. The e-way bill, valid from 14.12.2022 to 16.12.2022, was not cancelled within its validity period, indicating the transaction's legitimacy. The primary purpose of e-way bills is to track goods movement and ensure proper tax assessment. Since the petitioner's e-way bill remained active throughout its validity period, the authenticity of the transaction cannot be questioned. The court emphasized that mere technical discrepancies in shipping details do not warrant punitive action when the fundamental purpose of goods movement tracking is fulfilled. Petition allowed, proceedings against petitioner invalidated.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Trump threatening existence of GST; will his ‘good friend in New Delhi’ stand up: Cong

Trump threatening existence of GST; will his ‘good friend in New Delhi’ stand up: CongGSTDated:- 19-2-2025PTINew Delhi, Feb 19 (PTI) The Congress on Wednesday claimed that the talk of reciprocal tariffs by US President Donald Trump is calling into questio

Trump threatening existence of GST; will his 'good friend in New Delhi' stand up: Cong
GST
Dated:- 19-2-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Feb 19 (PTI) The Congress on Wednesday claimed that the talk of reciprocal tariffs by US President Donald Trump is calling into question a consumption tax like GST, and wondered whether his “good friend in New Delhi” would stand up to it when national sovereignty is at stake.
Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said his party has long been calling for a GST 2.0 that will make GST a truly Good and Simple Tax, as it was intended to be.
It has called for the barest minimum of rates and vastly reformed compliance rules, he said in a post on X.
“Now President Trump is threatening

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transport Vehicle Rental Services Without Consignment Notes Not Exempt Under Entry 18 Notification 12/2017-CT(Rate)

Transport Vehicle Rental Services Without Consignment Notes Not Exempt Under Entry 18 Notification 12/2017-CT(Rate)Case-LawsGSTAAR ruled that transportation services provided by subcontractor X to principal GTA are not exempt under Entry 18 of Notificatio

Transport Vehicle Rental Services Without Consignment Notes Not Exempt Under Entry 18 Notification 12/2017-CT(Rate)
Case-Laws
GST
AAR ruled that transportation services provided by subcontractor X to principal GTA are not exempt under Entry 18 of Notification 12/2017-CT(Rate). Since X does not issue consignment notes, a key requirement to qualify as GTA, their services constitute vehicle rental rather than goods transportation. The principal GTA maintains the direct transportation contract with consignors/consignees and issues consignment notes, while X merely provides vehicles. The services fall under Notification 11/2017-CT(Rate) as transport vehicle rental services and are therefore taxable. The exemption sought was denied as X's activities fall outside the scope of transportation services by a GTA.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Hand-held Vehicle Battery Replacement Multitools with Voltage Indicators Classified Under Chapter Heading 8204 for GST

Hand-held Vehicle Battery Replacement Multitools with Voltage Indicators Classified Under Chapter Heading 8204 for GSTCase-LawsGSTThe AAR ruled on classification of hand-held multitools designed for battery replacement in vehicles. The tools primarily con

Hand-held Vehicle Battery Replacement Multitools with Voltage Indicators Classified Under Chapter Heading 8204 for GST
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR ruled on classification of hand-held multitools designed for battery replacement in vehicles. The tools primarily consist of integrated spanners with additional components like screwdrivers, hex keys, and battery voltage indicators showing charge levels (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). While the tools incorporate electrical components (battery indicators) under Chapter 85, their primary function remains mechanical battery replacement. The Authority determined that since spanners constitute the major component, the multitools should be classified under Chapter Heading 8204 despite having integrated electrical features. The additional battery indicator functionality does not alter the tool's core purpose. Consequently, these multitools attract GST at 18% rate under Chapter Heading 8204.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Member Services by Clubs Now Taxable Under GST: Section 7(1)(aa) Makes Club-Member Transactions Supply from July 2017

Member Services by Clubs Now Taxable Under GST: Section 7(1)(aa) Makes Club-Member Transactions Supply from July 2017Case-LawsGSTServices provided by clubs to members are subject to GST following the retrospective amendment via Finance Act 2021, which ins

Member Services by Clubs Now Taxable Under GST: Section 7(1)(aa) Makes Club-Member Transactions Supply from July 2017
Case-Laws
GST
Services provided by clubs to members are subject to GST following the retrospective amendment via Finance Act 2021, which inserted Section 7(1)(aa) into CGST Act effective July 1, 2017. This amendment explicitly includes transactions between clubs/associations and their members within the scope of taxable supply, overriding the principle of mutuality established in WB v. Calcutta Club Ltd. The amendment deems clubs and their members as distinct persons, nullifying the previous SC ruling's applicability. The deletion of Para 7 from Schedule II and addition of an explanation clause gives this amendment precedence over any contrary judicial interpretations. Consequently, all club services to members are GST-liable from July 2017 onwards.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tailing Dam for Mining Waste Storage Not Eligible for Input Tax Credit Under Section 17(5)(c)(d)

Tailing Dam for Mining Waste Storage Not Eligible for Input Tax Credit Under Section 17(5)(c)(d)Case-LawsGSTAAR ruled ITC unavailable for goods and services used in increasing height of Tailing Dam for mining waste disposal. The dam, classified as immovab

Tailing Dam for Mining Waste Storage Not Eligible for Input Tax Credit Under Section 17(5)(c)(d)
Case-Laws
GST
AAR ruled ITC unavailable for goods and services used in increasing height of Tailing Dam for mining waste disposal. The dam, classified as immovable property and civil structure stretching several kilometers on natural foundation, does not qualify as “plant and machinery” under CGST Act Section 17(5)(c) and (d). The dam, serving merely as storage for mining waste, does not directly contribute to mineral extraction or processing. Being constructed on taxpayer's own account for business operations setting, it falls within ITC restriction. The structure's passive storage function, without impact on mineral quality or quantity, prevents it from being considered essential to core business activities, thus disqualifying ITC claims.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Assessment Orders Invalidated Due to Authority’s Failure to Consider Complete Financial Records and Natural Justice Violations

Tax Assessment Orders Invalidated Due to Authority’s Failure to Consider Complete Financial Records and Natural Justice ViolationsCase-LawsGSTHC set aside assessment orders due to procedural deficiencies in tax evaluation. Authority failed to consider com

Tax Assessment Orders Invalidated Due to Authority's Failure to Consider Complete Financial Records and Natural Justice Violations
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside assessment orders due to procedural deficiencies in tax evaluation. Authority failed to consider complete financial details, particularly regarding tax payments on scrap sales and battery sales, violating natural justice principles. Petitioner presented detailed break-up of tax payments for the first time before HC, which was not previously examined during assessment. Court determined petitioner deserved opportunity to present case with new materials. Matter remanded to original authority for fresh consideration, ensuring proper evaluation of all financial documentation and compliance with procedural fairness requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =