Author: admin_gst

Time Limits in CGST Appeals Are Advisory, Allowing Flexibility in Filing; Appeals Focus on GTA Services Valuation.
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR held that the time limit for passing an order u/s 101 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not mandatory, and the word 'shall' should be interpreted in an advisory manner to avoid denying the right of appeal. The appeals were filed within the statutory period and not barred by limitation. Manual filing of appeals is allowed u/r 107A of the CGST Rules, 2017. Both

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anticipatory bail allowed for fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit sans actual goods supply, with terms & conditions.
Case-Laws
GST
Anticipatory bail granted in a case involving fraudulent availing of Input Tax Credit and passing it without actual supply of goods. Provisions of CST Act, CGST Act, and judgments in related cases were considered. The High Court observed the issue of anticipatory bail in CGST offenses as unsettled and exercised discretion. Bail granted subject to terms an

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's GST challenge remanded due to lack of portal monitoring; tax deposit and reply chance given.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner challenged the impugned order on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, asserting unawareness of proceedings. Court observed petitioner's non-participation resulted from failure to monitor GST portal and respond to notices. To provide opportunity, impugned orders were set aside, matters remanded for reconsideration subject to condition that p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GSTR 3B mismatch with auto-populated GSTR 2A; tax demand partially recovered from bank; order set aside for reconsideration after reply.
Case-Laws
GST
Tax assessment proceedings involving GSTR 3B returns mismatch with auto-populated GSTR 2A. Disputed tax demand partially recovered through bank appropriation exceeding 10%. Order confirming demand solely for non-reply to show cause notice set aside for reconsideration after petitioner's reply. Matter remanded to allow petitioner to file r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner wins: SCN demanding IGST payment on manpower services quashed; Input tax credit upheld as validly availed.
Case-Laws
GST
Petition challenging SCN demanding IGST paid on manpower supply services received by petitioner. Court held State GST Authorities had already initiated proceedings against petitioner on same matter, barring Central GST Authorities from initiating proceedings u/s 6(2)(b) CGST Act. Impugned SCN demanding IGST quashed. Regarding denial of input tax credit for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Quashes GST Orders Due to Improper Notice Service and Lack of Consideration of Assessee's Replies.
Case-Laws
GST
Principles of natural justice were upheld in a case concerning service of show cause notices (SCNs) issued u/s 73 of the GST Act. The SCNs were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, but not under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab. The court observed that there was no material to reject the contention that the impugned order was not refle

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Improper GST registration suspension over NOC technicality quashed; business continuity restored.
Case-Laws
GST
The petition challenges the suspension of GST registration by the respondent authority. The court held that the suspension order lacked justification as the petitioner had complied with registration requirements, including submitting NOC for principal place of business. For additional premises, NOC is not mandated under GST rules. The authority erred in suspending registration

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Denial of refund quashed for lack of personal hearing; remanded for reconsideration after due process.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court quashed refund rejection orders for lack of opportunity for personal hearing as mandated by Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017, violating principles of natural justice. The show cause notices allowed 15 days for response, which petitioner complied with, but hearing was allegedly held before reply. No clear evidence of hearing intimation existed. Rule 92(3) requ

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mining lease deed registration fee & stamp duty – GST audit ongoing, advance ruling inadmissible.
Case-Laws
GST
The applicant's advance ruling application seeking nil rate of GST on stamp duty and registration fees paid for registering a mining lease deed is inadmissible. The matter is already under audit proceedings initiated by the Audit Commissionerate demanding GST payment. As per Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, an advance ruling cannot be sought on issues already pending in audit. T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Clarifies GST Appeal Process; Directs Appeals Against Assistant Commissioner's Orders to Commissioner.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dealt with the maintainability of a petition concerning the non-constitution of an Appellate Tribunal and the jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Commissioner as a “proper officer” and “adjudicating authority” under the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court held that since the Assistant Commissioner was assigned functions as a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Dismissal of late appeal against GST registration cancellation due to unexplained delay beyond limitation period.
Case-Laws
GST
The petition was dismissed due to the appeal being filed beyond the limitation period without a proper explanation for the delay. The High Court held that it cannot condone the delay under extraordinary jurisdiction when the petitioners failed to provide valid grounds. The Supreme Court precedent in Singh Enterprises case affirmed that there is no power to cond

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation quashed for lack of reasons, retrospective effect revoked.
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration was challenged due to lack of adequate reasons provided for cancellation and violation of principles of natural justice. The High Court, relying on Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises case, held that authorities failed to assign even rudimentary reasons for retroactive cancellation, rendering the order unsustainable. Additionally, the original show

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Overseas service provider wrongly classified as intermediary; entitled to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Case-Laws
GST
The court held that the petitioner was not an intermediary but directly engaged in providing services to an entity outside India. The respondents erroneously classified the petitioner as an intermediary without any material evidence or tripartite agreement. The petitioner's consistent stand was supplying services on a principal-to-principal basis. Merely p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST authorities cancelled registration retrospectively without proper reasoning. Court intervened, citing lack of substantive grounds.
Case-Laws
GST
Cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect challenged. Court held that authorities failed to provide substantive reasons for rejecting application and issuing show cause notice/cancellation order, merely stating “reply unsatisfactory” and “others” without reasoning. Petition allowed, directing cancellation of petitioner's GS

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Arbitrary cancellation of registration without reasons & hearing flouts natural justice & equality.
Case-Laws
GST
Cancellation of registration by adjudicating authority without assigning reasons and without application of mind violates principles of natural justice and Article 14 of Constitution. Providing reasons is essence of judicial proceedings. Delay beyond permissible period cannot be condoned. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to pass reasoned order after granting opportu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismissed for alternate remedy; no hearing due to petitioner's failure to update address.
Case-Laws
GST
The petition was declined on grounds of maintainability due to availability of an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The contention regarding failure of principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity of hearing was rejected, as intimations were sent to the petitioner's registered address, and the petitioner failed to notify the change

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancelled retrospectively without reasons, violating natural justice principles.
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration without assigning reasons violates principles of natural justice. The impugned order lacked reasoning for cancelling registration retrospectively from a particular date, having cascading effect on input tax credit. Mere allegation of non-existence was insufficient, as petitioner substantiated temporary suspension due to ill health

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Exemption Removed for Consultancy Services to Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Post-Jan 2022; 18% GST Applies.
Case-Laws
GST
Rate of tax applicable on services provided by the applicant to Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP) as part of the Jal Jeevan Mission, a Government of India mission. The services are classified as “Technical Consultancy for Project Development and Management support services” under SAC code 998399, attracting 18% GST (9% CGST & 9% SGST), unless exempted. For se

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Demand Order Overturned Due to Improper Notice Service; Petitioner Can Contest After Partial Payment.
Case-Laws
GST
Breach of principles of natural justice occurred due to lack of proper service of show cause notice (SCN). The impugned order and preceding notices were uploaded on the GST portal but not communicated through other modes. There was a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and auto-populated GSTR 2A. The High Court held that since the petitioner could not par

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer's GST demand order set aside due to consultant's non-communication, to be reconsidered after remitting 10% disputed tax.
Case-Laws
GST
Breach of principles of natural justice occurred as the petitioner was unaware of proceedings due to non-communication by the consultant entrusted with GST compliances, resulting in an order confirming tax demand due to non-response. Considering the petitioner's inability to participate, an opportunity should be provided to contest the demand on

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty for Expired E-way Bill Reduced; No Tax Evasion Intent Found, Rs. 10,000 Fine Imposed Instead of Maximum Penalty.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts – expiry of e-way bill – mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting goods without revalidating e-way bill. However, once plausible explanation provided by transporter/assessee and no attempt to evade tax found, proceedings should not culminate in maximum

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

State GST Demand Quashed for Lack of Jurisdiction; Petitioner Must Address Central GST Notice on Manpower Services 2017-2022.
Case-Laws
GST
Challenge to the State GST authorities demanding input tax credit availed by the petitioner along with interest and penalty for IGST paid on manpower supply services received during 2017-2022. It holds that the impugned show cause notices issued by the State GST authorities are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, as the Central GST authori

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Dismisses ITC Claim on Construction Goods; Fact-Finding Required to Determine Eligibility as 'Plant'.
Case-Laws
GST
The case pertains to the validity of input tax credit (ITC) availed on construction goods for a building leased to an educational institution. The Supreme Court held that each case involving malls or buildings must undergo a fact-finding inquiry to determine if it satisfies the functionality test of being a 'plant' u/s 17(5)(d). If the building qualifies as a plant,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST proceedings avoided: Central authority to proceed except for FY 2017-18 already covered by State.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed the issue of parallel proceedings initiated by both State and Central GST Authorities against the petitioner for the same assessment years. For the Financial Year 2017-18, the State GST Authority had initiated actions first, while for the remaining years, the Central GST Authority took the initial steps. The Court directed the Central GST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Remands CGST Act Exclusion Case for New Ruling; Emphasizes Functionality Test for Service Providers.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court examined the constitutional validity of exclusion (iii) to the Explanation to Section 17 of the CGST Act regarding the applicability to service providers. The authorities analyzed the matter from the perspective of definitions of 'plant' and machinery, relying on dictionaries, but did not focus on the functionality test. The Supreme Court held that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =