Author: admin_gst

GST Return Rectification Petition Rejected As Taxpayer Failed To Exhaust Statutory Remedies Under Section 107
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging GST return rectification and liability waiver, citing availability of statutory remedy under Section 107 CGST Act. The court noted petitioner failed to respond to show cause notice dated 27-12-2023, DRC-01A, and jurisdictional Range officer's communications. Following SC precedent in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax case, HC held that where statutory appeal mechanism exists, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked unless fundamental rights violation or natural justice breach is established. As petitioner neither demonstrated such exceptions nor exhausted available remedies, the petition was disposed of directing petitioner to pursue statutory appeals under CGST Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Claims Must Consider GSTR-9 Annual Returns, Not Just GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A Discrepancies Under Section 44
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that adjudicating authority must consider GSTR-9 annual returns when evaluating Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims, rather than solely relying on discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The term “reconciliation” in Section 44 implies potential rectification of errors in GSTR-3B through annual returns. Court emphasized that dismissing GSTR-9 filed within extended limitation period would prejudice assessee's rights and render Section 44(1) redundant. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication considering appellant's GSTR-9 submissions, with direction to verify voluntary payment of Rs.6,20,322 claimed during annual return filing but not reflected in GST portal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessee's Right to GST Pre-Deposit Refund Cannot Be Time-Barred Under Section 54; 'May' Interpreted as Directory
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that rejection of GST pre-deposit refund application on grounds of time bar under Section 54 is invalid. The court interpreted the word “may” in Section 54 as directory rather than mandatory, following SC precedent. The judgment emphasized that statutory pre-deposit refund is a vested right after successful appeal, and cannot be forfeited using Section 54's time limitation. The court noted this would conflict with the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of Limitation Act for money suits. Since pre-deposit was made from assessee's own funds without unjust enrichment, restricting refund by reading “may” as “shall” would be arbitrary. The deficiency memo rejecting the refund application was quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bank Account Freeze Orders Partially Lifted: HDFC Account Fully Released, SBI Account Unfrozen Up To Rs. 70 Lacs
Case-Laws
GST
HC partially lifted provisional attachment orders on bank accounts in tax liability dispute. Account in HDFC Bank Limited was completely unfrozen, while State Bank of India account received partial relief with debit restrictions lifted up to Rs. 70 Lacs. The freeze order remains effective for amounts exceeding Rs. 70 Lacs in the SBI account. Court balanced taxpayer's operational needs with revenue protection, allowing limited access to funds while maintaining security for potential tax recovery. The ruling demonstrates judicial discretion in modifying attachment orders based on proportionality and business necessity considerations.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Orders Quashed After Tax Department Failed to Serve Physical Notices and Denied Hearing Opportunity to Assessee
Case-Laws
GST
HC invalidated ex parte orders issued by tax authorities due to violation of natural justice principles. The respondent-Department failed to properly serve notices through physical means, only posting them on GST Portal's 'View of additional notices and orders' section, which petitioner was unaware of. The Court found that passing orders without providing opportunity for hearing violated fundamental procedural fairness. Orders were set aside and matter remanded to first respondent for fresh consideration with direction to ensure proper notice and hearing opportunity to petitioner. The ruling emphasizes mandatory compliance with natural justice principles in administrative proceedings, particularly regarding adequate notice and right to be heard.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Determination Order Quashed: Authority Failed to Issue Proper Show Cause Notice Under Section 73(1) of AGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC invalidated tax determination order due to procedural non-compliance with AGST Act 2017. Authority failed to issue proper Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73(1), instead providing only a summary notice and tax determination attachment. Court emphasized that SCN summary cannot substitute statutorily mandated full notice. Proper officer must issue complete SCN, statement under Section 73(3), and final order under 73(9). Compliance with subsections (1)-(8) and (10)-(11) of Section 73, along with Rule 142(1), are prerequisite for valid order under Section 73(9). Following precedent in Construction Catalysers case, court quashed impugned order for failing fundamental procedural requirements of natural justice.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Show Cause Notice Under GST Section 73(2) Invalidated Due To Two-Day Delay In Mandatory Timeline
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled on the validity of a show cause notice (SCN) under GST law regarding time limitations. The Court examined Section 73(2) and 75 of GST Act, determining that statutory timelines for issuing SCNs are mandatory, not directory. Drawing parallels with precedent from arbitration law, HC emphasized taxpayer protections including right to notice, personal hearing, and adequate response time. The two-day delay in issuing SCN could not be condoned as the provision was deemed mandatory, not directory. Court held that violation of prescribed time period under Section 73(2) renders SCN void, protecting taxpayer's procedural rights. Petition challenging the delayed SCN was allowed, effectively invalidating the assessment proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Department's 24-Hour Notice and 48-Hour Reply Window Violates Natural Justice, Order Set Aside for Fresh Hearing
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that principles of natural justice were violated when tax authorities provided insufficient time to petitioner for filing reply and personal hearing. The impugned order was deemed arbitrary and illegal as authorities gave only 24 hours notice for hearing and 48 hours for manual reply submission, followed by order passage within 24 hours thereafter. Court criticized departmental practice of solely relying on online portal notifications without RPAD communication. The matter was remanded back for reconsideration with direction to provide adequate opportunity of hearing. Court emphasized that opportunity of hearing must be meaningful rather than nominal, recommending adoption of RPAD notices alongside digital communications to ensure proper service and prevent wastage of departmental time.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Voluntary GST Payment Through Form DRC-03 Accepted as Valid Pre-Deposit for Appeal Against Original Order
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that voluntary payment made through Form GST DRC-03 constitutes valid pre-deposit for filing appeal against order-in-original, even though Form GST DRC-03A was introduced later. Following Circular No.224/18/2024-GST's clarification that DRC-03 payments shall be considered equivalent to DRC-03A pre-deposits, the Court set aside the rejection order dated 26.07.2024. The appeal was restored, with direction to consider the amount paid via DRC-03 as valid pre-deposit. The Court noted that despite multiple adjournments, authorities failed to verify the payment status, while funds remained in DRC-03. The petition was disposed of with instructions to accept the existing payment as legitimate pre-deposit for appeal purposes.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Appeals Must Be Filed Within 4 Months: No Power to Condone Delay Beyond Section 107 Limitation Period
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that appellate authority lacks inherent power to condone delay beyond statutory limits under CGST Act Section 107. Appeals must be filed within three months of order communication, with discretionary one-month extension for sufficient cause under Section 107(4). Where legislation creates special limitation regime with terminal date, general provisions of Limitation Act do not apply. Appellate authority's condonation power is strictly confined to statutory framework. Appeals filed beyond combined four-month period (three months plus one month extension) under Section 107(1) and 107(4) were dismissed as time-barred. Court emphasized that statutory remedies must strictly adhere to prescribed limitation periods in special tax legislation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Fraud: Arrest Declared Illegal Due to Premature Action and Procedural Violations Under Section 132
Case-Laws
GST
The HC found the arrest illegal due to procedural irregularities in a GST fraud investigation. The accused, facing charges under s.132 of GST Act for wrongful ITC utilization, was arrested hastily on December 22, 2024, at 7:55 am, despite a pending summons for December 30, 2024. The arrest memo, signed by Asst. Commissioner of State Tax, showed authorization obtained the same day of arrest. While the prosecution argued the case involved offenses punishable up to 5 years, the court determined the arrest was premature and procedurally flawed, particularly given an active summons and pending writ petition. The court ordered immediate release, declaring the arrest illegal and denying judicial custody.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory for Biometric-Based Aadhaar Authentication and Document Verification for GST Registration Applicants of Maharashtra and Lakshadweep
GST
Dated:- 8-2-2025

Dear Taxpayers,
This is to inform taxpayers about recent developments concerning the application process for GST registration. It is advised to keep the following key points in mind during the registration process.
1. Rule 8 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has been amended to provide that an applicant can be identified on the common portal, based on data analysis and risk parameters for Biometric-based Aadhaar Authentication and taking a photograph of the applicant along with the verification of the original copy of the documents uploaded with the application.
2. The above-

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

, she/he can proceed with the application as per the existing process.
5. However, if the applicant receives the link as mentioned in point 3(b), she/he will be required to book the appointment to visit the designated GSK, using the link provided in the e-mail.
6. The feature of booking an appointment to visit a designated GSK is now available for the applicants of Maharashtra and Lakshadweep.
7. After booking the appointment, the applicant gets the confirmation of appointment through e-mail (the appointment confirmation e-mail), she/he will be able to visit the designated GSK as per the chosen schedule.
8. At the time of the visit of GSK, the applicant is required to carry the following details/documents
(a) a copy (hard/soft) of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Power Company Wins IGST and Service Tax Refund After Proving Consumer Benefit Plan Through Tariff Adjustments
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that petitioner was entitled to refund of IGST and Service Tax paid on ocean freight following Mohit Minerals precedent. While addressing unjust enrichment concerns, court found petitioner's commitment to refund consumers through tariff adjustments satisfactory. Petitioner established plan to maintain refund amount in separate account for consumer benefit under Electricity Act provisions. Court rejected authorities' transfer of Rs. 23 Crores to Consumer Welfare Fund, finding it inappropriate when mechanism exists to return funds to affected consumers. Orders transferring refund to Consumer Welfare Fund quashed. Authorities directed to refund amount to petitioner within two weeks, with understanding funds would benefit consumers through regulated tariff reductions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Authority Can Extend 5-Year Limitation Under Section 73(1) Without Mandatory Pre-Show Cause Consultation in Fraud Cases
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that pre-show cause consultation was not mandatory in tax evasion cases and extended 5-year limitation period under Section 73(1) applied when proceedings involved allegations of fraud or suppression. The Court declined to examine whether fraud existed, ruling this was within the Appellate Authority's domain. While Section 74(1) of CGST Act requires specific evidence of fraud or willful misstatement for invocation, the authority's reasonable belief formation was valid despite petitioner's non-response. The writ petition was dismissed as premature given available statutory appeal remedies. The Court emphasized that “where possible” timeframes for tax determination were directory, not mandatory, allowing proceedings to continue beyond prescribed periods.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Period of Three Months Under Section 107 CGST Act Must Be Counted As Calendar Months, Not Days
Case-Laws
GST
HC examined interpretation of limitation periods under Section 107 of CGST Act 2017. The period of “three months” for filing appeal and “one month” for condonation of delay should be interpreted literally, not converted to 90 days and 30 days respectively. Following precedent from a recent arbitration case, HC determined that three-month period should be calculated calendar month-wise, not by counting days. In the instant case, appeal filed on 26.04.2024 fell within the extended one-month period from original deadline of 27.03.2024. Appellate authority erred by converting months to days. HC ruled that legislative intent clearly specified periods in months, not days. Appeal was held maintainable within condonation period subject to showing sufficient cause.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pure Services for Water Distribution Network Support Under Jal Jeevan Mission Qualify for GST Exemption
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR ruled that services provided by the applicant to the Public Health Engineering Directorate (PHED), Government of West Bengal, qualify for GST exemption as “pure services.” The services involve technological support for water distribution networks under Jal Jeevan Mission, including system maintenance, data management, and application development, without any goods transfer. The AAR determined these services meet three essential criteria: they constitute pure services, are provided to a State Government entity (as PHED divisions are integral parts of the state government), and relate to functions entrusted to Panchayats/municipalities under Articles 243G/243W of the Constitution regarding water supply. The ruling confirms GST exemption for services to both main PHED and its divisional offices.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Manpower Services for Jal Jeevan Mission's Data Entry and Engineering Support Qualify as GST-Exempt Pure Services
Case-Laws
GST
AAR ruled that manpower services supplied to Public Health Engineering Department for Jal Jeevan Mission qualify as exempt “pure services” under Notification 12/2017. The services meet three key criteria: they constitute pure services without goods transfer, are provided to state government (West Bengal), and relate to constitutional functions of Panchayat/Municipality under Articles 243G/243W regarding water supply. The supply of data entry operators and junior engineers for system administration and software support throughout West Bengal is therefore exempt from GST as it fulfills all conditions specified in Serial No. 3 of the notification.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Refund Restrictions Under Notification 9/2022 Cannot Apply to Credits Accrued Before July 2022
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that refund restrictions on input tax credit introduced by Notification No. 9/2022 (effective 18.07.2022) cannot be applied retrospectively. The Court invalidated Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST to the extent it made restrictions applicable to all refund applications filed after 18.07.2022, regardless of when input tax credit accrued. The Court emphasized that registered persons retain the right to recover input tax credit that arose from rate mismatches prior to 18.07.2022 under Section 54 of CGST Act. Impugned refund rejection orders were set aside, directing authorities to reconsider applications without applying the contested circular's clarification. This preserves taxpayers' vested rights to claim refunds for periods before the notification's effective date.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Precious Metals and Jewelry Under Chapter 71 Remain Exempt from E-Way Bill Requirements Under Rule 138(14)
News
GST
Generation of Electronic Way Bills (E-Way Bills) for goods under Chapter 71 of GST classification, covering precious metals, stones, and jewelry (except HSN 7117 – imitation jewelry), remains exempt from mandatory requirements under CGST Rules, 2017 Rule 138(14). While the NIC portal previously offered an “EWB for Gold” option, this facility has been withdrawn nationwide. The exemption continues except for intrastate movements within Kerala, where state-specific notification mandates E-Way Bill generation. The clarification resolves confusion arising from voluntary E-Way Bill generation by stakeholders who utilized the previously available system option. Transporters and taxpayers dealing with Chapter 71 goods must note this exemption while ensuring compliance with Kerala's state-specific requirements where applicable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ADVISORY ON E-WAY BILL GENERATION FOR GOODS UNDER CHAPTER 71
GST
Dated:- 7-2-2025

Subject: Clarification on E-Way Bill Requirement for Goods under Chapter 71
* Rule 138(14) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, read with its Annexure S.Nos. 4 and 5, states that goods covered under Chapter 71 viz., Natural or cultured pearls and precious or semi-precious stones; precious metals and metals clad with precious metal, Jewellery, goldsmiths', and silversmiths' articles, except those classified under HSN 7117(Imitation Jewellery), are exempt from the mandatory requirement of generating an E-Way Bill.
* Pursuant to the introduction of the E-Way Bill (EWB) for goods classified under Chapter 71, excluding HSN 7117

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Foreign Affiliate Seconded Employee Services: Rule 28 Sets Invoice Value as Market Value for GST Assessment
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that under Rule 28's second Proviso, the value declared in invoices for services from seconded employees represents their open market value. When foreign affiliates provide services without raising invoices, per Circular No. 210/4/2024-GST, such services are deemed to have 'nil' value, which becomes the market value under CGST Rules. This interpretation applies specifically to GST levy on expenses for seconded employees from foreign entities. The court emphasized that the declared invoice value, or absence thereof resulting in nil value, establishes the definitive market value for GST purposes. Petition was allowed, confirming this interpretation of Rule 28 and its application to seconded employee arrangements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Refund Claim Must Be Processed Promptly After Verification, Following Previous Precedents and Government Orders
Case-Laws
GST
HC directed state authorities to process petitioner's GST refund claim promptly following verification of facts and entitlement. Decision must consider state government's order dated 10.10.2018 and subsequent relevant orders. Court acknowledged petitioner's argument that similar GST refunds were previously granted in comparable cases. State must evaluate claim in light of established precedent regarding GST refunds during contract execution. Authorities instructed to conduct thorough assessment while maintaining consistency with prior administrative decisions on GST reimbursements. Matter disposed with specific directive for immediate processing of refund application.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Constitutional Validity of GST Circulars Upheld Against Procedural Challenges by Third-Party Petitioner Under CGST Act 2017
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld the constitutional validity of GST Circulars No. 3/3/2017 and 31/05/2018, dismissing challenges to their procedural legitimacy. The petitioner, lacking direct connection to the investigated firms, failed to establish standing. The court emphasized that challenges to administrative actions, particularly Show Cause Notices (SCNs), require concrete evidence of legal violations. Given the gravity of allegations involved, the court found no justifiable grounds to interfere with ongoing SCN proceedings under CGST Act, 2017. The determination of proper officers for GST functions was deemed valid within statutory framework. Petition dismissed, affirming administrative authority's procedural compliance.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Foreign Currency Refund Claims Cannot Be Rejected Solely On Receipt Timing Without Examining Complete Documentation Trail
Case-Laws
GST
HC found procedural deficiencies in handling refund claims where foreign currency receipts lacked proper documentation through e-BRC filings. Despite timing discrepancies between payment receipts and refund period, court emphasized adherence to natural justice principles. Original order was set aside with directions to relevant authority to pass fresh orders within 2 months, mandating proper consideration of evidence and following judicial discipline. Authority must provide opportunity for representation and maintain procedural fairness in reassessment. Timing of foreign currency receipt alone cannot be sole basis for rejection without examining complete documentation trail.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Interest Liability on GST Short Payment Overturned as Petitioner Gets Chance to Show Electronic Cash Ledger Balance
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside the order regarding interest liability on GST short payment. The petitioner claimed sufficient balance existed in their electronic cash ledger during the relevant period and sought opportunity to present evidence. Court permitted treating the impugned order as a show cause notice, allowing petitioner to submit objections with supporting documentation within two weeks of receiving the order copy. This ruling provides procedural fairness by giving petitioner another chance to demonstrate their compliance with GST payment obligations through documentary evidence of electronic cash ledger balances.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =