Author: admin_gst

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court allowed the petition by way of remand due to violation of principles of natural justice by the 4th Respondent. While the Petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice was unclear, the 4th Respondent failed to consider the Petitioner's contention that a petition was filed challenging the show-cause notice. The impugned order lacked reasons for finding the reply unsatisfactory, amounting to a breach of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded without requiring the Petitioner to exhaust alternate remedies. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge. The court held that to avail the Budgetary Support Scheme (BSS), the concerned unit must be located in the specified areas mentioned in the 2007 and 2017 notifications, producing specified goods cleared from the same units. The intent of the BSS pivoted around the geographical location of the unit, and the benefit was to accrue to those units for the residual period. Despite a change in name or acquisition of a new unit within Sikkim, there was no change in the geographical location of the units existing in Sikkim prior to the GST regime. The court observed that the appellants' anxiety regarding eligibility remained unaddressed, and no decision was taken by the DPIIT concerning their eligibility. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, DGST for non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice. The order had discarded the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice alleging non-declaration of output tax liability without assigning any reasons. The Court held that show-cause notices imposing further liabilities, including penalties, must be decided on merits and not in a cavalier manner. The challenge to the validity of certain notifications issued u/s 168A of the CGST Act was kept open to be raised afresh if required. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondents u/s 65 of the CGST Act, 2017 for conducting audit. The Court held that the Commissioner can conduct the audit at prescribed frequency and manner without any embargo or time period restriction. The audit is akin to a preliminary inquiry, and the Department should not be prevented from conducting such inquiry into the books of accounts of a registered person, causing no prejudice. Consequently, there were no reasons to interfere with the audit proceedings. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST Dated:- 16-12-2024 – News – Advisory for Biometric-Based Aadhaar Authentication and Document Verification for GST Registration Applicants of Chhattisgarh, Goa and Mizoram Dated:- 16-12-2024 – 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 document

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ar Authentication as mentioned in 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. 6. The feature of booking an appointment to visit a designated GSK is now available for the applicants of Chhattisgarh, Goa and Mizoram. 7. After booking the appointment, 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. 8. At the time of the visit of GSK, the applicant is required to carry the following details

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court held that since the nature of supply was intra-state in respective states, the tax liability shall be discharged individually in each state equivalent to the work executed there. As the petitioner joint venture (JV) failed to produce the inter se agreement or evidence regarding the proportion of work executed by each partner in the respective states, the court could not determine the tax liability. The court observed that the petitioner had not provided evidence of discharging tax liability in Maharashtra. Regarding the refund claim, the court held that as per Section 12(3) of the IGST Act, the place of supply shall be both states, and the nature of supply is intra-state proportionate to the value of services rendered in each state. The demand notices were kept in abeyance till disposal of the refund application in accordance with the court's order in related writ petitions. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court held that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing the determination of tax cannot be considered a valid initiation of proceedings u/s 73 without issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. The Summary is in addition to, but not a substitute for, a proper Show Cause Notice. The impugned order was passed without issuing a proper Show Cause Notice, in violation of Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a). The Statement attached to the Summary is merely the determination of tax u/s 73(3), not the Show Cause Notice required u/s 73(1). The Summary did not provide an opportunity for personal hearing, contrary to Section 75(4). Consequently, the High Court set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 17.04.2024 issued by the respondent, holding it to be in violation of statutory provisions. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued for wrongful availment of input tax credit by the petitioners. The Court held that the show cause notice u/s 74 of the CGST/WBGST Acts is merely initiation of adjudication and does not warrant judicial interference unless issued wholly without jurisdiction or ex-facie perverse. Relying on Supreme Court's decision in Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse case, the Court ruled that writ jurisdiction can be invoked only when the notice lacks jurisdiction, and interim relief cannot be granted bypassing the statutory adjudication mechanism. The Court found no jurisdictional error or procedural impropriety in issuing the notice and emphasized that procedural grievances can be effectively addressed during adjudication u/s 74(9). The statutory framework provides sufficient opportunity for taxpayers to raise defenses, and premature judicial intervention is impermissible. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking an order to require the defendants to secure an amount of Rs. 1,14,88,833/- until the disposal of the suit. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendants to demonstrate that they were attempting to dispose of or remove movable or immovable properties from the Court's jurisdiction to prevent the plaintiffs from realizing any decretal amount that may be awarded in the future. The Court found that the plaintiffs merely made a bald statement about apprehending the defendants' potential actions, without providing any supporting documents. The dispute over the principal amount of Rs. 77,05,223/- claimed by the plaintiffs, along with interest at 18% per annum, and the defendants' defense of having returned goods worth Rs. 55,24,252/- to the plaintiff company, remains a matter for trial. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court held that the Summary of Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing tax determination cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice as mandated u/s 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts. The impugned order was quashed as it violated principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of hearing u/s 75(4) before passing the order. The Court clarified that the Statement u/s 73(3) cannot be treated as a Show Cause Notice required u/s 73(1). Further, Rule 26(3) mandates authentication of the Show Cause Notice, Statement, and Order, which was not followed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the petition disposed of on technical grounds of non-issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and violation of statutory provisions. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court allowed the petition challenging the demand raised by the respondent Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority from the petitioner towards GST and premium. The demand was set aside as it was a non-speaking order, violating the principles of natural justice and being contrary to notifications, advance ruling, and the Court's judgment. The respondent was permitted to raise a fresh demand by passing a detailed speaking order considering relevant notifications, advance ruling, the Court's judgment, and subsequent notifications before 05.12.2023, indicating the petitioner's liability to pay the GST amount. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders cancelling the petitioner's registration. The court directed the respondent CGST/WBGST authority to restore the petitioner's registration, open the portal for 45 days to enable the petitioner to make payment of revenue due, including penalty, within 15 working days as indicated by the respondent authority. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court allowed the writ petition by quashing the appellate order dated June 28, 2024, due to procedural irregularities and arbitrary actions in the demand of tax, interest, and penalties u/ss 16(2)(c) and 73 of the GST Act. The Court held that provisions on limitation should be interpreted liberally where genuine hardships are demonstrated, considering judicial precedents supporting such relief. The Court found the petitioner's case meritorious in light of the procedural irregularities and arbitrary nature of the actions taken by the authorities. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court held that flavoured milk is to be classified under GST Tariff Heading 0402 and not 2202. The entry 0402 covers milk and milk products, including milk containing added sugar or sweetening matter. Although flavoured milk contains 0.5% Badam flavour, it cannot be excluded from Heading 0402 merely due to the addition of flavour. The principle of noscitur a sociis indicates that Heading 2202 covers beverages containing water as an essential part, except for tender coconut water. Since Heading 0402 is the specific entry and 2202 is the general entry, flavoured milk falls under 0402. Consequently, the question of penalty u/ss 122(2)(b) and 74 of the Central GST Act does not arise. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 for violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of show cause notices and assessment order. The case involved availment of input tax credit on alleged supplies from bill traders based on bogus invoices without actual goods involvement. Considering the petitioner had remitted the disputed taxes, the Court granted them a final opportunity to file objections within two weeks, treating the impugned order as a show cause notice. The petition was disposed of accordingly. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of appeal against cancellation of GST registration for non-compliance with GST REG 2017. The petitioner failed to furnish returns u/s 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. The show cause notice was issued on 15.01.2023, and the GST registration was cancelled vide order dated 15.01.2023. However, the petitioner filed an appeal on 28.03.2024, with a delay of 403 days, exceeding the statutory limitation period of three months u/s 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to relief due to the delay, lethargy in approach, and non-compliance with GST REG 2017 by not filing returns regularly. The Court found no perversity in the cancellation order or necessity for interference with the appellate order filed beyond the limitation period. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court set aside the impugned assessment orders imposing a 100% penalty u/s 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for excess claims of Input Tax Credit and short payment of tax due to discrepancies in sale invoices and turnover reported. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 11,36,408/- already paid within three weeks. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court held that the Summary of Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing tax determination cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice as mandated u/s 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. The impugned order was passed without issuing a proper Show Cause Notice, violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) which requires granting an opportunity of hearing when requested. The court quashed the impugned order dated 31.12.2023 for being contrary to Sections 73 and 75(4), and Rule 142(1)(a). However, liberty was granted to the authorities to initiate de novo proceedings u/s 73 for the relevant financial year. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The petitioner failed to amend the invoice and e-way bill to reflect the actual goods loaded on the vehicle, resulting in discrepancies in GST documentation. The High Court upheld the levy of penalty u/s 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017, amounting to 200% of the tax payable, due to the irregularity committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was unable to substantiate their case with records before the respondents. The Writ Petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to file a Statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority u/s 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale of land and buildings, based on the subsequent issuance of a pre-show cause notice dated 22 October 2024 by respondent No. 2 u/s 73(5) read with Rule 142(1-A) of the State Goods and Services Tax Act. The Court directed respondent No. 3 to dispose of the petitioners' application within three months, considering the provisions of Section 98(6) requiring the authority to pronounce the advance ruling within 90 days of receiving the application. The Court observed that if the advance ruling authority rules in favor of the petitioners, such ruling will bind not only respondent No. 2 but also the petitioners, as per Section 103(1). However, the Court cautioned against prematurely rushing to the Court, bypassing alternate remedies, before the authorities have an opportunity to examine the cause and make a decision. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2023 which had blocked the input tax credit availed by the Petitioner based on invoices raised by their Supplier u/s 17(5). The Petitioner agreed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. The impugned order shall be treated as a show cause notice, and the Petitioner shall submit objections along with supporting documents/material within four weeks from the receipt of the order. The petition was disposed of. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee to claim refund of Rs. 3,28,75,733/- towards Central Value Added Tax credit, Customs Duty, and Special Additional Duty paid after the appointed day under the CGST Act. The Tribunal rightly relied on Section 142(3) of the CGST Act to entertain the refund claim for amounts paid under the existing law prior to the GST regime, despite non-fulfillment of export obligation under the advance authorization scheme. The High Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's legal interpretation and conclusion. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court declined to entertain the petition challenging the Order-in-Original issued by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Pune. The Court held that no case was made out to deviate from the usual practice of requiring the party to exhaust the alternate statutory appeals available. Regarding the requirement of pre-deposit, the Court observed that the petitioner, being a multi-national company, cannot bypass the alternate remedy on such grounds. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the notification dated March 31, 2023, if the occasion arises after exhausting the statutory remedies, keeping all contentions of parties open in this regard. The petition was disposed of. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court dismissed the petitions seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were alleged to have misappropriated over Rs. 7 crores by misusing credentials and withdrawing funds from accounts, instead of paying statutory dues. Despite the grave allegations of economic offenses u/ss 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the court held that the offenses cannot be categorized as heinous. With the arrest of accused No. 1 and ongoing investigation, the court opined that their presence could be secured by imposing stringent conditions, and there were no justifiable grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The petition was dismissed by the High Court as no case was made out to depart from the usual rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies. The key reasons were: 1) An alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order, although the petitioner contended violation of principles of natural justice. 2) The petition was filed almost a year after the impugned orders, much beyond the statutory limitation period for appeal, without any explanation for the delay. While there is no limitation for filing a petition under Article 226, such petitions must be instituted within a reasonable period, and any delay is required to be explained. Since the petitioner failed to provide a justification for the inordinate delay, the High Court dismissed the petition. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =