Author: admin_gst

Section 107: Three-Day Appeal Delay Condoned After Managing Director's Travel Justification Deemed Reasonable Cause

Section 107: Three-Day Appeal Delay Condoned After Managing Director’s Travel Justification Deemed Reasonable CauseCase-LawsGSTHC allowed petition challenging appellate order under Section 107 of 2017 Act, finding that Appellate Authority failed to judici

Section 107: Three-Day Appeal Delay Condoned After Managing Director's Travel Justification Deemed Reasonable Cause
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed petition challenging appellate order under Section 107 of 2017 Act, finding that Appellate Authority failed to judiciously exercise discretionary power regarding delay condonation. Petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause for 3-day delay in filing appeal, citing Managing Director's travel. The delay fell within condonable period under Section 107(4

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Government Directed to Process GST Refund Claim for Public Contract Work Following Similar Precedents in Infrastructure Projects

Government Directed to Process GST Refund Claim for Public Contract Work Following Similar Precedents in Infrastructure ProjectsCase-LawsGSTHC directed respondent authorities to immediately process petitioner’s GST refund claim following contract executio

Government Directed to Process GST Refund Claim for Public Contract Work Following Similar Precedents in Infrastructure Projects
Case-Laws
GST
HC directed respondent authorities to immediately process petitioner's GST refund claim following contract execution. The authorities must verify facts and assess petitioner's entitlement, considering precedents where government departments including PWD, PMGSY, NHAI, Railways, and CPWD had refunded GST in similar cases. The court's directive emp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Vehicle and Goods Detained Under Section 129 Released After No Evidence of Tax Evasion Found in Invoice Verification

Vehicle and Goods Detained Under Section 129 Released After No Evidence of Tax Evasion Found in Invoice VerificationCase-LawsGSTHC found detention of vehicle and goods under Section 129 was improper. Physical verification confirmed correct quantity and we

Vehicle and Goods Detained Under Section 129 Released After No Evidence of Tax Evasion Found in Invoice Verification
Case-Laws
GST
HC found detention of vehicle and goods under Section 129 was improper. Physical verification confirmed correct quantity and weight of goods against three invoices, with no discrepancy in broad product classifications. Inspecting authority exceeded scope by scrutinizing detailed specifications (pipe size, shutter, TMT Bar dimensions) not required in invoices

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delay in GST Appeal Filing Condoned After Taxpayer Shows Good Faith Through Partial Payment and Compliance

Delay in GST Appeal Filing Condoned After Taxpayer Shows Good Faith Through Partial Payment and ComplianceCase-LawsGSTHC condoned a 35-day delay in filing GST appeal, emphasizing that procedural delays should not override substantive justice. The petition

Delay in GST Appeal Filing Condoned After Taxpayer Shows Good Faith Through Partial Payment and Compliance
Case-Laws
GST
HC condoned a 35-day delay in filing GST appeal, emphasizing that procedural delays should not override substantive justice. The petitioner had demonstrated compliance by depositing 10% of tax liability and making additional payments toward disputed amount. Court found strict application of GST Act's limitation provisions unwarranted given circumstances. Matter remand

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer Allowed to Transfer GST Demand Payment from DRC-03 to PMT-01 Through New DRC-03A Form Under Rule 142(2B)

Taxpayer Allowed to Transfer GST Demand Payment from DRC-03 to PMT-01 Through New DRC-03A Form Under Rule 142(2B)Case-LawsGSTHC addressed payment procedures for GST demands under rule 142. Petitioner paid demand through Form GST DRC-03 instead of required

Taxpayer Allowed to Transfer GST Demand Payment from DRC-03 to PMT-01 Through New DRC-03A Form Under Rule 142(2B)
Case-Laws
GST
HC addressed payment procedures for GST demands under rule 142. Petitioner paid demand through Form GST DRC-03 instead of required electronic liability register Form GST PMT-01. Following recent amendment via notification 12/24 introducing rule 142(2B), petitioner permitted to file Form GST DRC-03A electronically to transfer payment credit to electronic liabili

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer's GST Deregistration Valid Despite Supplier's Later Registration Cancellation if Taxes Were Paid During Transaction

Taxpayer’s GST Deregistration Valid Despite Supplier’s Later Registration Cancellation if Taxes Were Paid During TransactionCase-LawsGSTHC determined that subsequent or retrospective cancellation of supplier registrations does not invalidate a taxpayer’s

Taxpayer's GST Deregistration Valid Despite Supplier's Later Registration Cancellation if Taxes Were Paid During Transaction
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that subsequent or retrospective cancellation of supplier registrations does not invalidate a taxpayer's request for voluntary GST deregistration, provided the supplies were obtained from validly registered vendors who had paid applicable taxes at the time of transaction. The petitioner was granted three weeks to submit documentation pr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Late Fee Valid But General Penalty Struck Down For Delayed GST Annual Returns Under Section 47 And 125

Late Fee Valid But General Penalty Struck Down For Delayed GST Annual Returns Under Section 47 And 125Case-LawsGSTHC partially allowed the petition challenging GST late fee and penalty impositions. Court upheld late fee under Section 47(2) of GST Act for

Late Fee Valid But General Penalty Struck Down For Delayed GST Annual Returns Under Section 47 And 125
Case-Laws
GST
HC partially allowed the petition challenging GST late fee and penalty impositions. Court upheld late fee under Section 47(2) of GST Act for delayed annual return filing, which mandates Rs.100 per day subject to maximum 0.25% of state turnover. However, HC struck down additional general penalty of Rs.50,000 each under Section 125 for CGST and SGST, ruling that when specif

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Contractor Wins 6% GST Reimbursement Claim as Contract Mandates Full Tax Recovery from Principal Party

Contractor Wins 6% GST Reimbursement Claim as Contract Mandates Full Tax Recovery from Principal PartyCase-LawsGSTHC determined that the contractor was liable to pay GST at 18% on taxable turnover from works contract, while respondent had only reimbursed

Contractor Wins 6% GST Reimbursement Claim as Contract Mandates Full Tax Recovery from Principal Party
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that the contractor was liable to pay GST at 18% on taxable turnover from works contract, while respondent had only reimbursed 12%. Based on contractual obligations requiring full GST reimbursement, which remained uncontested, respondent must pay the differential 6% GST amount. Court directed respondent to reimburse contractor for the difference between GST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 Cannot Replace Proper Notice Under Section 73(1) GST Act

Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 Cannot Replace Proper Notice Under Section 73(1) GST ActCase-LawsGSTHC held that summary show cause notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute proper SCN under Section 73(1) of AGST Act, 2017. The impugn

Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 Cannot Replace Proper Notice Under Section 73(1) GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that summary show cause notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute proper SCN under Section 73(1) of AGST Act, 2017. The impugned order was quashed as it violated principles of natural justice by failing to issue proper prior SCN as mandated. Court emphasized that compliance with Section 73(1-8, 10-11) and Rule 142(1) are prerequisites for valid orders under

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Department Must Issue Detailed Show Cause Notice Under Section 73(1), Summary Notice Alone Invalid

GST Department Must Issue Detailed Show Cause Notice Under Section 73(1), Summary Notice Alone InvalidCase-LawsGSTHC held that issuance of only a Summary Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 violates natural justice principles and fails to comply wi

GST Department Must Issue Detailed Show Cause Notice Under Section 73(1), Summary Notice Alone Invalid
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that issuance of only a Summary Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 violates natural justice principles and fails to comply with Section 73(1) of AGST Act, 2017. The court emphasized that a Summary SCN cannot substitute a proper SCN as mandated under Section 73(1). The proper officer must issue a detailed SCN, statement under Section 73(3), and order under

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty Payment Under Protest in GST Cannot Be Deemed Voluntary, Preserving Right to Appeal Section 129(3)

Penalty Payment Under Protest in GST Cannot Be Deemed Voluntary, Preserving Right to Appeal Section 129(3)Case-LawsGSTHC quashed rectification order concerning GST penalty u/s 129(3). Initial penalty of Rs. 22,37,220/- was imposed and paid by petitioner t

Penalty Payment Under Protest in GST Cannot Be Deemed Voluntary, Preserving Right to Appeal Section 129(3)
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed rectification order concerning GST penalty u/s 129(3). Initial penalty of Rs. 22,37,220/- was imposed and paid by petitioner through DRC-03 under explicit protest. Authority subsequently attempted to rectify order making demand 'NIL' u/s 161. Court held that payment under protest cannot be deemed voluntary, and rectification cannot deprive appellant's statu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment Orders Without Document Identification Number Are Invalid and Cannot Be Enforced Under GST Rules

Assessment Orders Without Document Identification Number Are Invalid and Cannot Be Enforced Under GST RulesCase-LawsGSTHC ruled that assessment order lacking Document Identification Number (DIN) is invalid and non-est, following Supreme Court precedent in

Assessment Orders Without Document Identification Number Are Invalid and Cannot Be Enforced Under GST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that assessment order lacking Document Identification Number (DIN) is invalid and non-est, following Supreme Court precedent in Pradeep Goyal case. The court relied on CBIC circular No.128/47/2019-GST and previous Division Bench ruling which established that absence of DIN number compromises proceeding validity. Assessment order uploaded to portal without DI

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Service Tax Penalties Under CGST Act Quashed As Services Were Exempt During Pre-GST Period Under Finance Act

Service Tax Penalties Under CGST Act Quashed As Services Were Exempt During Pre-GST Period Under Finance ActCase-LawsGSTHC allowed petition challenging service tax penalties under CGST Act. Penalties pertained to period before CGST implementation when ser

Service Tax Penalties Under CGST Act Quashed As Services Were Exempt During Pre-GST Period Under Finance Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed petition challenging service tax penalties under CGST Act. Penalties pertained to period before CGST implementation when services were exempt under Finance Act 1994. Court relied on precedent from Kanak Automobiles case where tax amount was Rs. 86 lakh compared to present case's Rs. 6,33,879. Distinguishing quantum while following ratio from SC judgment,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Stock Discrepancies Found During GST Survey Must Follow Assessment Under Section 73/74, Not Confiscation Under Section 130

Stock Discrepancies Found During GST Survey Must Follow Assessment Under Section 73/74, Not Confiscation Under Section 130Case-LawsGSTDuring a factory premises survey, discrepancies in raw material and semi-finished product inventory led to confiscation p

Stock Discrepancies Found During GST Survey Must Follow Assessment Under Section 73/74, Not Confiscation Under Section 130
Case-Laws
GST
During a factory premises survey, discrepancies in raw material and semi-finished product inventory led to confiscation proceedings under s.130 read with s.122 of the GST Act. The HC ruled that when stock discrepancies are discovered during a survey of a registered dealer, authorities must initiate proceedings under s.73/74 of the GST Act rather than s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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.

= = = = = = = =

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.

= = = = = = = =

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 autho

= = = = = = = =

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 ass

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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.

= = = = = = = =

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 pr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =