Author: admin_gst

Taxpayer's delay in filing GST registration revocation application condoned. If all requirements met, revocation will be considered.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed a case involving a delay in filing an application for Revocation of cancellation of GST registration. The court considered the invocation of the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules). The Petitioner fulfilled all requirements by paying taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. The

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer entitled to refund of Input Tax Credit. Portal issue prevented timely filing. Allowed to submit manual application within 2 weeks.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered a case regarding refund of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner's refund application was rejected due to lack of supporting documents. The petitioner argued that due to portal closure, they couldn't rectify the deficiencies or file a fresh application. The court emphasized that procedural rules should facilitate j

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Violation of natural justice challenged in assessment orders due to discrepancies in tax returns. Orders quashed, case remitted for fresh assessment.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed a challenge to assessment orders due to a mismatch in returns filed by the petitioner in GSTR 01 and GSTR 3B. The court found a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner's attempt to absolve liability incurred by their deceased mother was rejected u/s 93 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The court

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed due to 53-day delay, not 152 days as stated. Appellate authority can condone delay beyond 120 days.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered the maintainability of an appeal u/s the GST Act. The appeal was dismissed due to a 152-day delay in filing. The court clarified that the appellate authority can condone delays beyond 120 days. The original order was dated 08.02.2022, and the appeal was filed on 21.07.2022, resulting in a 53-day delay after deducting the statutory 9

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ-petition challenging GST circulars remanded back to court of single bench for decision.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered the maintainability of a writ petition u/s Article 226 challenging a circular under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act. It held that the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to declare a provision ultravires, a power reserved for Constitutional Courts. The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition remanded to the Single Bench for deciding the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner challenged assessment orders, citing breach of natural justice. Court found discrepancies addressed, quashed order, directed fresh assessment.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed a challenge to three separate orders, alleging a breach of natural justice principles. The petitioner responded to discrepancies during inspection by providing necessary documents. The assessment orders were deemed questionable, and the petitioner was directed to pay specified amounts within a tim

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Challenge to Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 25.09.2023 upheld. No restriction on officer issuing SCN or adjudicating. Petition disposed.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed a challenge to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 issued based on inspection and obtained statement. Court held no restriction on inspecting officer to issue SCN u/s GST enactments. Directed State Tax Officer to transmit Notice to proper officer for adjudication as per Circular No. 13/2022-TNGST.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Demand of tax on cotton purchase from agriculturist under GST Act confirmed. Penalty sustained. Argument of revenue neutrality rejected.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered the issuance of notice u/s 74(1), 122(2), and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 u/s Rule 142(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for unpaid tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on cotton purchase from agriculturist. The petitioner challenged jurisdiction but was allowed to make submissions on merits. The court found petitioner l

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's challenge to GST assessment rejected due to missing documents. Order quashed for re-consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed a challenge to an assessment order u/s GST ASMT-10 due to non-submission of required documents. The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's reply citing lack of reconciliation statements and incomplete submission of relevant invoices. The Court found the rejection unsustainable as the petitioner's reply in Form ASMT-10 was sufficient.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seizing goods before election, dispute on release method. Court says: Bond & Bank Guarantee needed. Complainant must comply.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed a dispute regarding the release of seized goods before an Assembly Election process. The court held that release is permissible u/s the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 only if a Bond and Bank Guarantee are provided for the worth of the goods. The complainant's claim of a lower value for the goods was considered, and

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court ruled no GST on royalty until Nine Judge Constitution Bench decides. Petitioner has 4 weeks to reply.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed the issue of GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government. Referring to a Division Bench Judgment, it was held that there should be no recovery of GST on royalty until a decision by a Nine Judge Constitution Bench. The petitioner was allowed to submit a reply within four weeks from th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GTA: Goods Transport Agency can claim Input Tax Credit based on supplier's invoices.
Case-Laws
GST
The Advance Ruling Authority addressed two key issues: 1) Whether a supplier, who is the owner of a vehicle, can charge GST on rental/hiring services under the Forward Charge Mechanism even if the service is exempted. The ruling stated that this question is not maintainable as the applicant did not undertake or propose to undertake any supply of renting/hiring vehicles. 2) Whether a Goods

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismissed for not using statutory remedy. File appeal within 3 weeks. Court won't review case now.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered the maintainability of a petition u/s 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in light of the availability of statutory remedy. Citing the principle of natural justice, the Court referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the discretion of the High Court not to entertain a writ petition when an effective alternate remedy exis

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court ruled no GST recovery on royalty until Nine Judge Constitution Bench decision. Petitioner can reply within 4 weeks.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts. Referring to a Division Bench Judgment, it was held that no GST recovery on royalty is allowed until a Nine Judge Constitution Bench decision. The petitioner can respond to the intimation within four weeks from the order date.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick not

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delay in filing revocation application for GST registration condoned. Petitioner must pay all dues for consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered a case involving the condonation of delay in filing a revocation application for the cancellation of GST registration. The court held that the delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules was condoned. The petitioner was directed to deposit all taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, etc., and

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Violation of natural justice in tax assessment order challenged. Petitioner not given fair chance to contest. Order quashed, remit 10% disputed tax.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed a challenge to an assessment order, noting a violation of natural justice principles due to lack of communication of show cause notice and order through means other than GST portal upload. Discrepancies between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A were reconciled in annual return GSTR-9. Petitioner, though not particip

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court held that end of lease doesn't negate petitioner's claim for GST amounts. Arbitral tribunal to decide. Limited protection granted.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed the restriction on the petitioner's claim for GST amounts due to the end of the agreement between the respondent and the renter. The court held that the agreement's termination does not negate the petitioner's claim. The court determined that the arbitral tribunal is the appropriate forum to decide the petitioner'

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

One-Day Appeal Delay Excused Due to Staffing Issues; Electricity Utility's Appeal to Be Heard.
Case-Laws
GST
The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) considered the condonation of delay in filing an appeal u/s 100(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017. The appellant, a Tamilnadu Government-owned Electricity Generation and Distribution Utility, sought condonation of a one-day delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons of staff shortage and administrative issues. The AAAR noted that the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner didn't appeal tax order in time. Court says no merit in Writ Petition. Can file appeal within 30 days.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the petitioner's failure to file an appeal u/s 107 of the GST enactment against an impugned tax payment order rendered the Writ Petition without merit. The Court noted the expiry of the appeal filing deadline and the recovery of the tax amount from the petitioner. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file a statutory appeal in complian

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition challenging delay in filing appeal & non-deposit under WBGST Act allowed. Order set aside, matter remanded for appeal hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered a challenge to an order u/s WBGST Act due to a 32-day delay in filing an appeal and non-deposit of pre-deposit. The petitioner provided relevant documents supporting the case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for a merit-based appeal hearing. The petitioner w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Rules Cash Not “Things” Under CGST Act; Seizure Order Invalid Due to Lack of Justification and Delays.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed the validity of a seizure order u/s 67(2) of the CGST Act, focusing on whether the term “things” includes cash/currency seized during search and seizure. The Court considered conflicting interpretations from different High Courts. It held that cash/currency is not encompassed within the term “things” in the provision. The Court emphasized th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mismatch between the GSTR 3B return and the GSTR 1 statement: Court finds lack of fair chance to contest. Order set aside for reevaluation.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court found a violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a fair chance to contest a tax demand due to a mismatch between GSTR 3B return and GSTR 1 statement. The tax liability arose from this discrepancy. The petitioner's counsel provided evidence of GST computation errors. The court noted the tax proposal wa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Violation of fairness: Petitioner's explanations ignored. Discrepancies unaddressed. Order set aside for review.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court found a violation of natural justice as the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice was not considered. Discrepancies in GSTR returns were explained by the petitioner, including credit notes and missing supplier invoices. The court noted that the explanation provided was not rejected with reasons, leading to the order being set aside. The case

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Extension of time for tax assessment or notice issuance. Order passed during ongoing case. No enforcement until next court date.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed the issue of extension of limitation for assessment u/s 74 or issuing Show Cause Notice (SCN) as per Notification No. 09/2023 by CGST authorities. During the writ petition, interim orders were issued. Respondent authorities issued an order u/s 73(9) of CGST Act, 2017/Assam GST Act, 2017. The Court directed respondents to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court ruled against alleged excess input tax credit claim due to violation of natural justice principles. Stay on demand order till next hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
HC addressed alleged excess input tax credit claim u/s 73 SGST/CGST Act, 2017. No SCN issued, only summary, violating Section 73 and Rule 142. Violation of natural justice. Notice issued, returnable in 4 weeks. Counsels for respondents accepted notice. Waiver of Notices due to representation. Extra copies of petition to be s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =