Author: admin_gst

Tax Credit Dispute Resolved: Taxpayer's Genuine Error Recognized, Rectification Application to Be Reconsidered Under GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed petition challenging tax determination order under GST Act. The court found the proper officer erroneously dismissed the taxpayer's rectification application without adequately examining the bonafide mistake in tax credit intimation. The HC held that when taxpayers demonstrate genuine errors and seek immediate rectification, they should not be penalized with exorbitant liabilities inconsistent with constitutional principles. The impugned order was set aside, directing the proper officer to reconsider the rectification application and reassess the tax liability with a comprehensive review of available records.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayers Can File Delayed GST Returns After Paying Interest, Court Allows Condonation of Delay Under Section 62(2)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the 60-day period under Section 62(2) of GST Act is directory, not mandatory. The petitioner failed to file returns for October 2018 to March 2019 within prescribed time limit, resulting in a best judgment assessment order. The court determined that if an assessee demonstrates valid reasons beyond their control for delay, they can file returns after paying applicable interest and penalties. The petitioner was directed to submit an application for condonation of delay within 15 days, with the understanding that the tax authority shall consider such application on its merits, preserving the fundamental right to file returns.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancellation Overturned: Procedural Flaws and Lack of Reasoned Order Invalidate Administrative Action
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition challenging GST registration cancellation, finding the impugned order non-compliant with procedural requirements. The order was deemed arbitrary and passed without due application of mind, violating principles of natural justice. Specifically, the cancellation order failed to provide a speaking order with substantive reasoning as mandated under CGST Act and Rules, despite the petitioner's non-response to show cause notice. The court held that absence of reasoned explanation renders the administrative action invalid, thereby quashing the registration cancellation order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Sale of Incomplete Building Exempted from GST: Transaction Not Considered Supply of Goods or Services Under Schedule II and III
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that the sale of an incomplete building does not constitute a supply of goods or services under GST regulations. The transaction falls outside Entry 5(b) of Schedule II, as no construction service was contemplated between parties. The sale is neither a supply of goods nor services per Schedule III. Consequently, the court quashed the respondents' order rejecting the petitioner's GST refund claim and allowed the refund application, determining that the transaction was not subject to GST levy.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Land Acquisition Compensation Exempt from GST: Solatium Payments Ruled Non-Taxable Under Service Supply Regulations
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that compensation paid as solatium for land acquisition is not subject to GST under CGST/KGST Act. The court determined that sale of land and immovable property falls outside GST taxation, even without specific schedule exemptions. The compensation does not constitute a service supply with consideration, and the conditions in land acquisition agreements do not trigger GST liability. The court emphasized that governmental land acquisition payments are not taxable transactions, and the impugned notices were deemed illegal and without legal jurisdiction. Petition was consequently allowed, quashing GST levy on land acquisition compensation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Procedural Fairness Prevails: Appeal Reinstated After Violation of Natural Justice Principles in Administrative Proceedings
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the Petitioner's appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order-in-Appeal and Rectification Order. The court found that Respondent No. 2 violated principles of natural justice by rejecting the appeal without considering the submitted Power of Attorney and without providing an opportunity to cure procedural defects. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with the Petitioner directed to submit self-certified document copies within two weeks. The decision emphasizes procedural fairness and the opportunity to rectify technical non-compliances in administrative appeals under CGST Act, 2017.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Exporters Win: Refund Claim Upheld Despite Document Gaps, Payment Proof Not Mandatory Under CGST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed refund claim challenging rejection based on non-submission of documents. The court held that proof of payment is not mandatory for export of goods, and only reconciliation statement of Shipping Bill and Export Invoices is required. The RBI circular stipulates payment realization within 9 months, which was satisfied in this case. The order rejecting refund was deemed unsustainable as it was based on grounds beyond CGST Act & Rules, effectively invalidating the original administrative decision and granting relief to the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Maida Pappad Extrusion Snack Pellets Classified Under 1905 90 30, Confirmed for 5% GST Rate
Case-Laws
GST
AAR ruled that Maida Pappad, classified as un-cooked/un-fried snack pellets produced through extrusion, falls under tariff sub-heading 1905 90 30. The product is subject to 5% GST rate effective 27.07.2023, as per Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax (Rate). The ruling emphasizes that advance rulings are case-specific and depend on individual factual circumstances, rejecting direct comparison with previous similar cases. The determination focuses on the product's manufacturing process and inherent characteristics to establish its precise tax classification.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Authorities Must Prioritize Business Sustainability and Compliance Over Punitive Actions Under GST Regulations
Case-Laws
GST
HC censured departmental actions in GST proceedings, emphasizing that the legislative intent behind the GST regime is not to disrupt businesses or compromise livelihoods. The court critically evaluated the punitive approach, highlighting that tax compliance should foster business growth and national economic development. The interim order mandates that all departmental actions must strictly adhere to GST Act provisions, with a focus on constructive engagement rather than punitive measures. The court's ruling underscores the need for a balanced regulatory approach that supports entrepreneurial sustainability and economic progress.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Refund Victory: Petitioner Wins Challenge Against Rejected Budgetary Support Claims Under Notification 05.10.2017
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled in favor of petitioner, finding the rejection of budgetary support refund claims invalid. The court held that the calculation of 58% central tax and 29% IGST paid through cash ledger was correctly applied. The respondent's rejection of Rs. 31,456/- for July-September 2021 and Rs. 69,684/- for January-March 2022 quarters was deemed contrary to the notification dated 05.10.2017. The court directed respondent to release the inadmissible amounts, effectively granting the petitioner's refund claims in full.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Credit Case: Bail Granted to V.G. and R.D. Due to Insufficient Evidence and Limited Financial Involvement
Case-Laws
GST
DSC grants bail to accused V.G. and R.D. in tax credit case, finding insufficient evidence of direct involvement. Court noted lack of concrete proof beyond recorded statements, considered accused's 25% and 7% alleged benefit shares are below Rs.5 crore threshold. Accused in custody for 25 days, no further interrogation required. Bail granted on Rs.50,000 personal bond with surety, emphasizing proportionality between alleged offense and prolonged detention. Release orders issued immediately, without commenting on case merits. Procedural arrest requirements deemed satisfied.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Assessment Order Invalidated Due to Procedural Unfairness, Denying Petitioner Proper Opportunity to Present Defense
Case-Laws
GST
HC found a violation of natural justice principles in the GST assessment order. The respondent issued a show-cause notice and scheduled a hearing, but failed to consider the petitioner's adjournment request and supporting documentation. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order (Form GST DRC-07) dated 23.08.2024, determining that the administrative action did not provide adequate opportunity for the petitioner to present a comprehensive defense, thereby breaching fundamental procedural fairness.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Govt Can Relax GST Tribunal Officer Appointment Criteria for State Servants Under Specific Service Conditions
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the petition challenging GST Tribunal appointment notification. The court held that relaxation of eligibility criteria under Section 110(d) is permissible only for State Government officers who have not completed 25 years of service, and does not extend to All-India Service officers. The petitioner's contention that the notification was premature or ultra vires was rejected, with the court noting that identical relaxations had been granted in ten other States. The notification was found to be legally valid, and the petition was dismissed without merit.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund Claim Upheld: Tax Calculation Validates Petitioner's Entitlement to Rs. 8,848 in Budgetary Support Amounts
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, holding that the rejection of Rs. 1,678/- for July-September 2021 and Rs. 7,170/- for January-March 2022 quarters was improper. The court determined that the budgetary support calculation under the scheme was correctly applied, with entitlement calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid. The respondent was directed to release the inadmissible amounts in accordance with the notification dated 05.10.2017, effectively granting the petitioner's full refund claim.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Recovery Notice Against Deceased Taxpayer's Heirs Quashed Due to Procedural Irregularities in Statutory Communication
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition challenging tax recovery proceedings against legal heirs of deceased taxpayer. The court found the statutory notice issued to a deceased person was procedurally invalid, violating principles of natural justice. The STO failed to provide legal heirs an opportunity to be heard before confirming tax demand under Section 74 of the Act of 2017. Consequently, the recovery notice against the petitioners was deemed legally unsustainable, and the entire proceedings were nullified due to non-compliance with statutory requirements for proper notice and hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 96(10) Omission Invalidates Administrative Orders, Challenging Procedural Continuity and Regulatory Enforcement Mechanisms
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 was unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, rendering subsequent administrative orders invalid. Referencing SC precedent in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd., the court held that rule omission differs from statute amendment, and Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 does not apply. Consequently, the administrative order dated 30th January, 2025 was found procedurally improper, and its enforcement was stayed pending writ petition resolution. The ruling emphasizes that without explicit legislative saving provisions, pending proceedings cannot continue under an omitted rule.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Budgetary Support Claim Upheld: Petitioner Wins Refund of Rs. 2,195/- Under Tax Credit Scheme Notification
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, holding that the rejection of Rs. 2,195/- by the respondent was improper and contrary to the budgetary support scheme notification. The court determined that the petitioner was entitled to budgetary support calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid, after input tax credit utilization. The HC directed the respondent to release the inadmissible amount for the quarter January 2022 to March 2022, finding no justification for the partial claim rejection.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancellation Order Struck Down for Procedural Flaws, Petitioner Granted Opportunity to Rectify Deficiencies
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed the GST registration cancellation order dated 20.12.2023 due to procedural irregularities and lack of reasoned decision. The order was found arbitrary and in violation of natural justice principles. The court granted the petitioner one month to either submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice or furnish pending returns with full tax payment. The Proper Officer was directed to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and pass a speaking order with explicit reasoning when taking adverse actions. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to rectify procedural deficiencies.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Refund Win: CGST Act Supports Partial Claims with 58% Budgetary Support for Central Tax and 29% IGST Credit
Case-Laws
GST
HC adjudicated a tax refund dispute involving budgetary support claims under CGST Act, 2017. The court found the respondent's rejection of partial refund claims improper, specifically for Rs. 48,640/- and Rs. 64,496/- for different quarters. The HC held that the petitioner was entitled to budgetary support calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid after input tax credit utilization. The court ordered respondent No. 3 to release the inadmissible amounts previously withheld, declaring the original rejection orders contrary to the notification dated 05.10.2017. Petition was disposed of with directions for refund release.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Legal Challenge Succeeds: Ex-Parte Demand Orders Quashed for Violating Time Limitations and Procedural Fairness Under Section 73(9)
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed ex-parte demand orders dated 28.12.2023 and 11.07.2023 as time-barred under Section 73(9), referencing precedent in M/s Anita Traders case. The court determined that the impugned orders were issued beyond the jurisdictional time limitation for the financial year 2017-18, violating principles of natural justice. The orders were consequently invalidated, with the petitioner's challenge successfully upheld, thereby rendering the statutory notices null and void.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Judicial Restraint Prevails: Writ Petition Dismissed, Statutory Appeal Under Section 107 CGST Act Recommended
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed writ petition challenging a demand order under CGST Act. While the petition was technically maintainable under Article 226, the Court declined to entertain it due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court emphasized the established principle that when a specific statutory forum exists for grievance redressal, judicial discretionary intervention should be limited. The petitioner was directed to pursue the prescribed appellate mechanism, thereby preserving the statutory dispute resolution framework.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Municipal Onion Market Leasing Deemed Public Function Exempt from GST Under Constitutional Municipal Powers
Case-Laws
GST
AAR determined that leasing 19 onion mandis to a contractor for daily fee collection constitutes a municipal function under Article 243W of the Constitution. The activity is exempt from GST as it falls within the scope of local authority's public functions. The transaction between the municipality and contractor is considered an inseparable public service activity, not a commercial supply of goods or services. The notification No. 14/2017-CT(Rate) applies, rendering the entire transaction outside the taxable domain. The key consideration was the functional nexus with constitutional municipal responsibilities, rather than the administrative mechanism of service delivery.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Government Dues Settlement Clears Property Sale Path, Orders Immediate Payment and Certificate Deletion Within Four Weeks
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled in favor of petitioner, directing payment of outstanding government dues amounting to Rs. 21,99,700/- within four weeks from order receipt. Upon compliance, the second respondent must delete attachment endorsement from encumbrance certificate, thereby facilitating sale certificate registration for sixth respondent. The court's intervention resolved the recovery notice dispute by providing a clear pathway for resolution through specified monetary settlement, effectively removing administrative impediments to property transaction.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Integrated Terminal Project Deemed Composite Works Contract, Attracts 18% GST Under Section 2(119) of CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR determined that the contract for installing terminals linking Western and Southern regions constitutes a composite works contract under Section 2(119) of CGST Act. The services involving transportation, freight, and insurance are inextricably linked to the overall project execution. The entire contract spans five segments but fundamentally aims to commission immovable property. Consequently, the services are classified under 'Construction Services' (SAC 9954) and attract 18% GST, negating any potential exemption claims. The ruling emphasizes the interconnected nature of the contract's components, treating transportation and related services as integral to the comprehensive works contract rather than standalone services.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund Claim Upheld: Petitioner Wins Challenge Against Incorrect Rejection, Secures Full Refund with Interest under Section 56
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, quashing the respondent's rejection order. The court directed the respondent to grant a refund of Rs. 96,65,325/- with 6% interest per annum from 12.09.2021 until actual payment, as per Section 56 of CGST Act. The original ground for refund rejection was found factually incorrect, as the Appellate Authority had indeed specified the refund amount. The petition was consequently disposed of in favor of the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =