Author: admin_gst

Legal Service via Common Portal Under GST Act Section 169(1)(d) Deemed Valid, Ex Parte Orders Set Aside with Partial Tax Deposit Requirement
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that service of notices via common portal under Section 169(1)(d) of GST Act constitutes sufficient legal service, despite potential ineffectiveness. While respondents adopted an alternative service mode, they failed to ensure effective communication. The ex parte assessment orders were set aside, with fault attributed to both

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Corporate Debt Resolution Shields Restructured Company from Post-Approval Tax Demands Under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that additional tax demands against the corporate debtor (CD) after NCLT's Resolution Plan approval are invalid. The court held that post-resolution plan claims by creditors would impede the implementation of the approved restructuring process. Specifically, assessment orders and demand notices for tax years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2017-2018 wer

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Electronic Service via Common Portal Legally Valid Under GST Act, Section 169(1)(d) Enables Direct Digital Notification Without Additional Requirements
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that service of notice/order via common portal is valid under GST Act. Section 169(1)(d) independently provides for electronic service through common portal, without requiring additional notification under Section 146. The statutory provision explicitly enables serving decisions, orders, summons, and notices electro

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Supplier Status Challenge: GST E-Way Bill Penalty Reduced from Rs.7,36,490 to Rs.25,000 Under Section 2(105)
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that the petitioner, not being a 'supplier' under GST Act Section 2(105), was improperly penalized Rs.7,36,490/- for failing to generate Part-B of E-Way Bill during goods transportation for job work. The court found the penalty disproportionate, considering the petitioner had generated Part-A of E-Way Bill and provided a valid Delivery Challan. The impugned

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST Refund Dispute Remanded: Tax Authority Must Provide Hearing and Reconsider Order Under Rule 96B
Case-Laws
GST
HC remanded the matter concerning IGST refund dispute, setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 30.08.2024. The court directed the petitioner to file response to the show cause notice by 02.05.2025, mandating the tax authority to provide personal hearing and issue a fresh order in compliance with legal principles. While rejecting jurisdictional challenges, the co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Leasehold Rights Transfer of Industrial Plot Not Taxable Under GST, Exempt from Levy per CGST Act Provisions
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that assignment of leasehold rights for an industrial plot, involving transfer of land and constructed buildings to a third party for a lump-sum consideration, does not constitute a taxable supply under GST regulations. The court determined that Section 7(1)(a) of CGST Act, read with Clause 5(b) of Schedule II and Clause 5 of Schedule III, shall not apply t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Criminal Proceedings Under CGST Act Require Prudent Evaluation of Evidence and Proportionality Before Arresting Taxpayers
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that CGST authorities must exercise prudence before initiating criminal proceedings against a taxpayer. In this case, the arrest for alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit was premature and disproportionate, as no prior adjudication or quantified demand under Section 74 of CGST Act was established. The court emphasized that government authorities m

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Zero-Rated Services Refund Upheld: Registration Gaps Cannot Block Input Tax Credit Claim Under Sections 54(1) and 16(3)
Case-Laws
GST
HC allows petitioner's claim for input tax credit (ITC) refund on zero-rated services, holding that registration without specific service category details does not invalidate refund eligibility. The court interpreted Sections 54(1) and 16(3) of CGST and IGST Acts harmoniously, determining that a registered person can claim refund irrespective of service c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Restoration: Assessees Granted Portal Access to File or Revise TRAN-1 Forms Under Recent Directive
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled on Input Tax Credit TRAN-1 declaration, following SC directive in Filco Trade Centre case. Pursuant to SC order and departmental circular, web portal was reopened, allowing assessees to file or revise TRAN-1 forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions. Petitioner utilized the facility to file TRAN-1 form, resolving all previously ra

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan Bars Pre-Approval Tax Proceedings, Extinguishing Dues and Preventing New Recovery Attempts Under Section 31(1)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that once a Resolution Plan is approved under IBC Section 31(1), only debts specified in the plan remain payable, binding on all authorities. Tax proceedings relating to the period prior to plan approval stand extinguished. The impugned show cause notice and order under Section 73 of CGST Act for Financial Year 2019-20,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST Act Amendment: Interim Deposit Reduced from 20% to 10% Under Finance Act, 2024 Provisions
Case-Laws
GST
HC modified its prior interim order regarding CGST Act amendment, reducing the mandatory deposit from twenty percent to ten percent as per the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. The court interpreted Section 112(8) and Section 143, concluding that the statutory amendment directly impacts the interim deposit requirement. Consequently, the original direction for twenty percent deposit shal

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Judicial Intervention Halts Tax Penalty Enforcement, Mandates Goods Release and Security Compliance Under Section 112
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the appeal against the Additional Commissioner's order under Section 112 of UPGST Act, 2017, cannot be immediately adjudicated due to non-constitution of appellate tribunal. The penalty order is stayed, and seized goods shall be released subject to compliance with Rule 140 of CGST Rules, 2017. The previously deposited penalty amount shall be ad

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Quashes GST Registration Cancellation Order for Deceased Taxpayer's Heir Due to Lack of Substantive Evidence
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition challenging a GST registration cancellation order under section 93(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017. The order against a deceased taxpayer was deemed perverse and unsustainable, as the respondent failed to provide material evidence demonstrating the petitioner's continued operation of the deceased father's proprietary concern after obtainin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective Penalty Under Section 122(1A) Challenged: Legal Challenge Highlights Potential Procedural Irregularity in Statutory Application
Case-Laws
GST
HC granted ad-interim relief to petitioners challenging retrospective application of penalty under Section 122(1A). The court found a prima facie case exists, noting the statutory provision was enacted on 1 January 2021 but sought to impose penalties for period prior to enforcement (July 2017 to December 2020). The court's interim or

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Appeal Allowed Beyond Limitation Period: Exceptional Relief Granted Based on Delayed Knowledge and Statutory Compliance
Case-Laws
GST
HC granted relief to the Petitioner by permitting an appeal against the tax demand of Rs. 7,88,611/- beyond standard limitation period. Despite not interfering with the original order, the Court recognized the Petitioner's claim of delayed knowledge and allowed appeal filing subject to mandatory pre-deposit requirements under Section 107 of CGST Act.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancellation Voided: Procedural Fairness Demands Proper Hearing and Opportunity to Defend Business Interests
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that due to the death of key business principals and potential violation of natural justice principles, the GST registration cancellation proceedings against the Petitioner were procedurally flawed. The Court set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, and directed the Petitioner be granted a substantive

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

No GST on UPI Transactions: Government Confirms Zero Taxation for Digital Payments Under Rs. 2,000
News
GST
The GOI officially refutes claims of proposed GST on UPI transactions over Rs.2,000, confirming no such taxation measure exists. CBDT has eliminated Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) on Person-to-Merchant UPI transactions, rendering GST inapplicable. An active Incentive Scheme from FY 2021-22 supports low-value UPI transactions, with escalating allocations (FY2021-22: Rs.1,389 crore; F

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Invalidates GST Rule 86A Blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger Due to Procedural Defects and Lack of Fair Hearing
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) under Rule 86A of CGST Rules, 2017 was procedurally invalid. The order was quashed due to absence of pre-decisional hearing, lack of independent reasons to believe, and reliance on borrowed satisfaction from enforcement authorities. The court directed immediate unblocking of petitioner's ECL, em

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural Justice Prevails: GST Authorities Penalized for Denying Hearing Rights Under Section 75(4)
Case-Laws
GST
HC found a clear violation of natural justice principles under Section 75(4) of GST Act, 2017, where administrative authorities failed to provide personal hearing to the petitioner. The ex-parte assessment and show cause notice were procedurally defective, with 'NA' marked against hearing date despite specific hearing request. The Court imposed Rs. 20,000 cost on the Joint Co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Apartment Allotment Triggers GST Liability Based on Payments Made During Construction Phase Under Section 7
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that the petitioners' apartment/duplex allotment involved GST liability based on payments made during construction period prior to completion certificate. The court determined that contractual agreements and partial consideration paid before project completion on 31.12.2018 triggered service tax obligations under Section 7 and Schedule II of CGST Act, 2017.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Canceled for Persistent Non-Compliance: Piecemeal Returns Insufficient to Prevent Statutory Penalty Under Rule 22(4)
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld the cancellation of taxpayer's registration due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. Despite filing returns after the show cause notice, the taxpayer failed to submit returns for all six months with requisite tax interest and late fees. The court emphasized that piecemeal return filing does not satisfy the statutory

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Rejects Bail Modification in GST Fraud Case, Upholds Original Order Based on Investigation Completion and Cooperation
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside CJM's order regarding bail in a fraudulent GST invoicing case, finding no material change in circumstances warranting release. Despite seeking cancellation of regular bail, the court determined no re-arrest was necessary as the investigation is complete and the respondent has fully cooperated. The respondent demonstrated availability

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer Wins Challenge Against Improper GST Refund Rejection, Court Orders Reconsideration Under Rules 89, 90, and 92
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition challenging the refund claim rejection. The court found that the respondent improperly rejected the refund application in GST RFD-03 by stating refund was not permissible due to voluntary payment. The court quashed the deficiency memo and remanded the matter back to the respondent to reconsider the refund application in GST RFD-01 i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Judicial Intervention Nullifies Ex-Parte Order, Reinstates Petitioner's Right to Fair Hearing and Natural Justice Principles
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside ex-parte order due to violation of natural justice principles, specifically lack of proper service of pre-intimation notice and show-cause notice. Despite previous dismissal of petitioner's appeal as time-barred, the court adopted a justice-oriented approach. Recognizing petitioner's claim of bona fide reasons for non-participation, the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner Wins Challenge Against GST Assessment Orders Due to Procedural Flaws and Lack of Fair Hearing
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition challenging GST assessment orders for 2018-19, finding procedural irregularities in ex-parte orders issued without proper hearing. The court recognized the petitioner's bona fide reasons for non-response to show cause notice and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law, directing a comprehensive re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =