Author: admin_gst

Petition dismissed for violation of natural justice principles. Inadequate time given for GSTR mismatch reply. Adjournment denied due to no written reply.
Case-Laws
GST
Violation of principles of natural justice challenged through ex-parte demand order and show cause notice (SCN). Impugned SCN provided less time than stipulated u/s 73(2) of UP GST Act for submitting reply, citing mismatch in GSTR filed. Court held that adjournment application would have been entertained if petitioner ha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Jurisdiction challenge rejected for non-participation. 10% deposit within 8 weeks for fresh hearing. File replies in 12 weeks. Final order in 2 months.
Case-Laws
GST
Jurisdiction challenge to assessment orders passed by different officer from investigating officer. Petitioner negligent in non-participation in proceedings emanating from notices. Opportunity given subject to 10% disputed tax deposit within 8 weeks. Impugned quashed orders treated as addendum to notices. Petitioner to file

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Grants Bail in Fake GST Entities Case Due to Long Custody and Completed Investigation.
Case-Laws
GST
Grant of regular bail in case involving sale/purchase of fake GST entities, issuance of fake firms and fraudulent beneficiaries of fake GST ITC. Considering attending circumstances, materials on record, law laid down in Ratnambar Kaushik and Satendra Kumar Antil cases, maximum punishment of up to 5 years, petitioner's custody for over 4 months, offence based on documentary evi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition disposed, awaiting SC verdict on GST levy on mining under reverse charge. Recovery proceedings stayed pending appeal disposal. No pre-deposit needed.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court disposed off the petition, awaiting the final decision of the Supreme Court in UDAIPUR CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. regarding the levy of GST on mining activities under the reverse charge mechanism. The recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders shall

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ against GST adjudication order dismissed for violating natural justice. Petitioner can approach Appellate Authority after statutory pre-deposit.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ petition challenging adjudication order u/s 73(9) of West Bengal GST/CGST Act, 2017, dismissed. Proper officer failed to call for records before passing order, violating natural justice principles. Statutory pre-deposit required for appeal not made. Petitioner permitted to approach Appellate Authority after making statut

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax liability order set aside due to non-receipt of notice. Reconsider 5% tax demand within 2 weeks & reply to show cause.
Case-Laws
GST
Petition challenging assessment order and consequential bank attachment was allowed. Impugned order imposing tax liability on allegation of sale suppression based on purchase-outward supply value difference was set aside. Petitioner claimed unawareness of proceedings due to non-receipt of show cause notice. Considering petitioner's assertion and nature

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Hostel accommodation exempt for 10 months (Serial No. 12). Short stay (1-2 months) for new students taxable (Serial No. 3).
Case-Laws
GST
Hostel accommodation services provided for 10 months' duration are exempt under Serial Number 12 of Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as per the Madras High Court ruling in Thai Mookambikaa Ladies Hostel case. However, such services for 1-2 months to new students during vacation are not exempt under Serial Number 3. For old students extending s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delay in availing Input Tax Credit disputed. Rs. 23,35,892/- relief granted. Case remitted for considering GST Council proposals.
Case-Laws
GST
Demand on account of alleged delay in availing Input Tax Credit purportedly Rs. 23,35,892/- out of Rs. 57,12,114/-. Impugned order set aside to that extent, case remitted to consider proposals in GST Council's 53rd Meeting and Finance (No.2) Bill, 2024 (Bill No.55 of 2024) Clause 114 & 146. For balance amount Rs. 33,76,222/-, petitioner given li

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pre-deposit not made for appeal initially; later paid over 11% of disputed tax. Appellate authority to decide on merits.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioners did not make required pre-deposit for maintaining appeal – appeal initially filed belatedly, defective and rejected without merits – subsequent appeal filed with pre-deposit also belated – no lack of bona fide – petitioners already paid over 11% of disputed tax, more than required for appeal – matter remanded to appellate authority for decisi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner entitled to refund of unutilized ITC on exports. BRCs for realization suffice; can't reject refund for delay in BRC submission.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) on export of goods u/s 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner furnished Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) evidencing realization of sale proceeds, and the application for refund could not be rejected so

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's Input Tax Credit claim rejected due to lack of supplier certificates & GSTR mismatch. Recovery stayed for 3 months.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner failed to substantiate Input Tax Credit claim due to lack of supplier certificates. Discrepancy noted between Input Tax Credit availed in GSTR 3B and auto-populated in GSTR 2A. Electronic Credit Ledger balance after adjustment indicates inadequate explanation. Petitioner's credit tax position appears incorrect, unable to avail claimed

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

RBI penalties for law violations & vendor liquidated damages not taxable under GST as per circular. Disciplinary, not service consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
Penalties, late fees, penal interest, and fines levied by RBI for contravention or violation of laws are for maintaining discipline and deterrence, not consideration for services, hence not taxable under GST as per circular. Penalties for non-performance or underperformance by vendors as per contract with RBI are liquidated damages to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Govt company with equal Central & State equity denied exemption on leasing services as govts own >20%. 18% GST applicable.
Case-Laws
GST
Applicant, a government company established by Central and State governments with 50% equity participation each, sought advance ruling on eligibility for exemption under Sr. No. 41 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) for leasing services provided. The Authority ruled that since the Central/State government has 20% or more ownership in the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Error not apparent, refund customers first. “Other charges” classification not rectifiable. AAR upheld for equity & uniformity.
Case-Laws
GST
Rectification application dismissed as error not apparent on record. Excess GST collected from customers to be refunded to them before claiming refund from tax authorities to avoid unjust enrichment. Classifying “other charges” as consideration for construction services under HSN Code 9954 or separate services under respective heads not a rectifia

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Polymer Coating for Bridges: Classified as Works Contract, Taxed as Service; Rates Vary Over Time per CGST Act.
Case-Laws
GST
The works rendered by the applicant involving application of polymer protective coating for bridges, as part of construction or routine maintenance/renovation, falls under the definition of “works contract” u/s 2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017, and will be treated as supply of service under Service Code 995473. The composite supply of such works contract for construc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund Application Valid, Court Quashes Rejection on Limitation Grounds; Original Filing to Be Considered on Merits.
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioner filed a refund application within the two-year limitation period for the year 2017-2018 on 17.09.2018, and subsequently filed a fresh refund application on 2.01.2020 after receiving a deficiency memo. The High Court held that the original refund application filed on 17.09.2018 would be considered a proper refund application within the limitati

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory in respect of Changes in GSTR 8
GST
Dated:- 2-8-2024

Please refer to the GST Council decision to the effect that TCS rate has been reduced from the current 1% (0.5% CGST + 0.5% SGST/UTGST, or 1% IGST) to 0.5% (0.25% CGST + 0.25% SGST/UTGST, or 0.5% IGST) effective from 10/07/2024 vide Notification No. 15/2024 dated 10.07.2024.
Thus, the following important aspects regarding the TCS rates effective from 10.07.2024 are to be noticed:
1. Period from 1st July to 9th July 202

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Gross and Net GST revenue collections for the month of July, 2024
GST
Dated:- 2-8-2024

Please click on the link below to view the gross and net GST revenue collections for the month of J

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Hybrid Annuity Mode: Unified Contracts for Highway Construction, Maintenance, and Continuous Service Payments.
Circulars
GST – States
Under Hybrid Annuity Mode (HAM) for National Highway Projects, concessionaire constructs new road and provides Operation & Maintenance over 15-17 years with payment staggered over years. HAM contract is single contract for construction and O&M, cannot be split into separate contracts. Payment is continuous supply of services u/s 2(33). Time of supply is d

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Custodial services by banks/FIs to FPIs not treated as services to 'account holder' u/s 13(8)(a) IGST Act. Determined under default 13(2).
Circulars
GST – States
Clarification provided that custodial services provided by banks or financial institutions to Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) are not treated as services provided to 'account holder' u/s 13(8)(a) of IGST Act. Such services are not covered u/s 13(8)(a). Place of supply of custodial services to FPIs is to be determined under d

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory for Biometric-Based Aadhaar Authentication and Document Verification for GST Registration Applicants of Jammu & Kashmir and West Bengal
GST
Dated:- 2-8-2024

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 a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

point 3(a), 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. Once 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.
6. At the time of the visit of GSK, the applicant is required to carry the following details.
(a) a copy (hard/soft) of the appointment confirmation e-mail
(b) the details of jurisdiction as mentioned in the intimation e-mail
(c) Aadhaar Card and PAN Card (Original Copies)
(d) the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Excess stock triggers GST Act Sections 73/74, not Section 130. Court quashes orders invoking Section 130 for excess stock found during survey.
Case-Laws
GST
Excess stock found during survey triggered initiation of proceedings against petitioner. Court held if excess stock found, proceedings u/ss 73/74 of GST Act should be invoked, not Section 130 read with Rule 120. Court relied on previous judgment holding excess stock attracts Sections 73 & 74, not Section 130 read with Rule 122. Law

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner allowed to rectify GST returns beyond time limit u/s 39(9) as no revenue loss. Respondents to open portal for amendment.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner sought rectification of errors in GST returns due to non-compliance with time limitation u/s 39(9) of CGST Act. Court held no revenue loss if rectification permitted, relying on Star Engineers case. Respondents directed to open portal within a week to enable petitioner to amend GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B within a week. Petition disposed.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner challenged ITC mismatch order. Court set aside order, remitted case for fresh orders considering amended Rule 36(4).
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner challenged order u/s 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 for assessment year 2017-18 due to mismatch between GSTR 3B and auto-populated GSTR 2A regarding input tax credit. Court held that respondent failed to consider changes in CGST Rules, 2017, particularly Rule 36(4). Difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B attributable to mismatch for supplies by

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Geo Membrane classified under Chapter 59, not 39 as per CTM case. GST 12% from 15.11.2017, not 18%. Discounted rate applies.
Case-Laws
GST
Classification dispute regarding Geo Membrane manufactured by petitioner – whether to be classified under Chapter 59 or Chapter 39 of Tariff. Court relied on Coordinate Bench decision in MESSERS CTM TECHNICAL TEXTILES LTD case, holding product falls under Chapter 59, not Chapter 39 as ruled by Gujarat Advance Ruling Authority. Petitioner liable to pa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =