Author: admin_gst

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

= = = = = = = =

Notifications – GST – Highlights – The Commissioner, on the recommendations of the Council, has extended the due date for filing FORM GSTR-3B for the month of October 2024 till 11th December 2024 for registered persons whose principal place of business is in Murshidabad district of West Bengal. This extension is granted under sub-section (6) of section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for those required to file returns under sub-section (1) of section 39 read with clause (i) of sub-rule (1) of rule 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The notification is deemed effective from 20th November 2024. – 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 orders dated 01.02.2022 and 24.04.2024 passed against the petitioner u/s 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner had availed input tax credit by mistake but did not utilize it. The original order was passed without providing an opportunity for personal hearing, violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass fresh orders after granting an opportunity of hearing and allowing the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice in accordance with law. – 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 granted bail to the applicant u/ss 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The case involved the creation of fake firms and issuance of bogus bills and invoices without any supply of goods and services. Considering the facts, nature of the offence, punishment, available material, the applicant's lack of criminal history, and the release of a co-accused with a more serious role on bail, the Court held that the applicant made out a case for bail without expressing any opinion on the merits. – 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 and directed the petitioner to exhaust alternate remedies by fulfilling pre-deposit conditions. The court held that no case was made out to depart from the practice of exhausting alternate remedies. The argument that CBIC circulars were not followed could be raised before the appellate authority. Merely styling the impugned order as without jurisdiction or perverse was insufficient to circumvent exhausting alternate remedies. The court followed the reasoning in Oberoi Constructions Ltd regarding exhausting 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 petitioner challenged the refund sanctioning orders u/s 54 of the CGST Act on the ground that the unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC), including transitional credit from CENVAT, was ignored. The High Court held that the provisions of Section 54 would apply, and the authorities could not deprive the petitioner of the CENVAT credit available on 01.07.2017 merely because it was reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger in August 2017 after processing Form GST TRAN-1. Considering the decision in M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals case, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and the show-cause notice, allowing the refund of unutilized ITC after considering the CENVAT credit. – 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 was entitled to a refund of Rs. 53,08,494/- which was paid in excess along with the return in Form GSTR-3B for the month of March 2023. The excess payment arose due to rectification of an error committed while filing the return for January 2023, wherein the reverse charge liability was not reflected separately and was clubbed with the output tax liability. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner had rightly rectified the error in the March 2023 return by paying the excess amount through the electronic cash ledger, and was entitled to the refund claimed, in view of the Circular No. 26/2017 and the facts of the case. – 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 filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to issue a refund of Integrated Goods & Services Tax (IGST) along with interest due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that since the petitioner's application for refund was made at the ports of export and the claim was to be dealt with by the Customs Authorities of the port, the cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court. Consequently, the Court did not adjudicate on the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of IGST despite having claimed a higher rate of duty drawback. – 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 orders dated 29 December 2022, 20 February 2024, and the appellate authority's order dated 08 July 2024, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration retrospectively on grounds of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Court found that the authorities failed to provide cogent material indicating the registration was originally obtained through fraudulent means. Crucially, the show cause notice did not consider the amended registration certificate issued on 02 July 2019, and the petitioner was not provided the inspection report of 03 June 2022, which formed the basis for rejecting the revocation application. The cancellation orders were quashed due to lack of evidence substantiating the allegation of fraud in obtaining the initial registration. – 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 expressed doubt on the applicability of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for mere mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1, as the said provision can be invoked only if fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts is alleged. The respondents were permitted to proceed with the impugned Show Cause Notice, but any final orders passed shall not be given effect until the next hearing date of 16.12.2024. – 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

= = = = = = = =

News – GST – Highlights – For FY 2023-24 onwards, Table 8A of Form GSTR-9 will be auto-populated from GSTR-2B, leading to a mismatch between values in Tables 8A and 8C. The advisory provides guidance on reporting various scenarios in GSTR-9, such as invoices reported late by suppliers, ITC reversed and reclaimed due to non-payment within 180 days, ITC claimed for goods not received, invoices belonging to the previous year appearing in Table 8A, and ITC claimed, reversed, and reclaimed in the same year. The key is to accurately report ITC in the appropriate tables (8C, 13, 6H, etc.) based on the specific circumstances, following the instructions provided. – 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:- 10-12-2024 – News – Advisory on difference in value of Table 8A and 8C of Annual Returns FY 23-24 Dated:- 10-12-2024 – As per the Notification No 12/2024 Central Tax dated 10th July 2024 read with Notification No.20/2024-Central Tax Dated 8th October 2024 , for FY 2023-24 onwards, the total credit available for inwards supplies shall be auto-populated in the table 8A of Form GSTR 9 from GSTR-2B of the FY 23-24. Further, in table 8C of Form GSTR-9 total value of ITC on inwards supplies received during the FY but availed in next FY up to specified period, need to be filled manually. 2. Various tickets are received, wherein concerns have been raised regarding possible mismatch between the values of table

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

8A of GSTR 9 for FY 2023-24 because it is the part of next years GSTR 2B . How to report such transaction in the GSTR 9 of FY 23-24? Taxpayer shall report such ITC in the Table 8C and in Table 13 as this is the ITC of FY 2023-24. This is in line with the instructions to the Table 8C and Table 13 of GSTR 9 2 Invoice belongs to FY 23-24 and ITC has been claimed in FY 23-24. Due to payment not made to supplier within 180 days, ITC was reversed in 23-24 as per the second proviso to section 16(2) and this ITC is reclaimed in next Year FY 2024-25, after making the payment to supplier. How to report such transaction in the GSTR 9 of FY 23-24? This reclaimed ITC shall be reported in the table 6H of GSTR 9 for FY 24-25 hence not in the Table 8C and

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

after the due date of filing of GSTR-1 for the tax period of March 23. How to report such transaction in the GSTR 9 of FY 23-24? This is the ITC of last year (2022-23) and was auto populated in table 8A of GSTR-9 of FY 22-23. Hence, aforesaid value need not to be reported in the table 8C and Table 13 of GSTR-9 for FY 23-24. This is in line with the instruction no 2A given for the notified form GSTR 9 which states that Table 4,5,6 and Table 7 should have the details of current FY only 5 Where to report the reclaim of ITC for an Invoice which belongs to FY 2023-24, and which is claimed, reversed and reclaimed in the same year? As already clarified by the CBIC press release 3rd July 2019 in the para k, It may be noted that the label in Table 6

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST Dated:- 10-12-2024 – News – Advisory for Biometric-Based Aadhaar Authentication and Document Verification for GST Registration Applicants of Haryana, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura Dated:- 10-12-2024 – 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 th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

TP-based Aadhaar 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 Haryana, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura. 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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court held that the negative blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of the writ petitioner by the respondents, purportedly exercising powers u/r 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, cannot be sustained. The issue of negative blocking stands conclusively decided in favor of the writ petitioner in light of the judgment in Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, where it was held that orders disallowing debit from the ECL in excess of the available Input Tax Credit at the time of passing such orders (referred to as Negative blocking) are set aside. Consequently, 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 prima facie held that the income of the petitioner, a charitable institution registered u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be assessed to tax under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The activities undertaken by a charitable institution would not prima facie fall within the ambit of activities undertaken in the course of or in furtherance of business as envisaged u/ss 7 and 9 of the CGST Act for levying tax on inter-state supply of goods or services. The impugned order dated 30 April 2024 has been placed in abeyance, and the matter requires further consideration by the High Court on the next date of listing on 08.01.2025. – 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 negative blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of the writ petitioner by the respondents, purportedly exercising powers u/r 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, cannot be sustained. The issue of negative blocking stands conclusively decided in favor of the writ petitioner in light of the judgment in Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, where it was held that orders disallowing debit from the ECL in excess of the available Input Tax Credit at the time of passing such orders (referred to as Negative blocking) are set aside. Consequently, 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 allowed the petitioner's writ petition and set aside the impugned order denying transition of CENVAT credit of Rs.1,39,31,604/- u/s 140(1) of the CGST Act. The court held that mere issuance of a show-cause notice, subsequently kept in abeyance, cannot disentitle the petitioner from claiming transition of the available CENVAT credit as on 30.06.2017 to the GST regime. The CENVAT credit available to the petitioner on the transition date was admissible for transition, irrespective of the pending inquiry's outcome under the earlier CENVAT regime. – 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 and quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's refund application for unutilized input tax credit. The court held that the Notification No. 14/2022 amending Rule 89(5) of the GST Rules is clarificatory and curative in nature, rectifying the anomaly in the refund formula. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court ruled that such a clarificatory amendment operates retrospectively. Therefore, the amended Rule 89(5) would apply to refund or rectification applications filed within the two-year period u/s 54(1) of the GST Act, irrespective of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) circular restricting its applicability prospectively. Denying retrospective benefit would discriminate against assessees who applied for refunds before the amendment's issuance. The court quashed the circular's clarification treating the amendment as prospective and allowed the petitioner's refund claim based on the rectified formula. – 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 rejecting the petitioner's claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s 16(4) of the GST Act due to a discrepancy between the e-way bill and GSTR-3B. The petitioner was directed to deposit the entire tax due of Rs. 87,129/- on issues other than the rejection of ITC invoking Section 16(4) within two weeks from the receipt of the court order. – 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 for a works contract involving construction of a barrage across two states, Telangana and Maharashtra, the place of supply would be determined proportionately based on the value of services rendered in each state as per Section 12(3) of the IGST Act. Consequently, the supply would qualify as an intra-state supply u/s 8 of the IGST Act in proportion to the work executed in the respective states by the contractors registered there. The tax liability must be discharged individually in each state commensurate with the work executed therein. The petitioner's refund claim for TDS was rejected due to lack of evidence regarding discharge of tax liability in Maharashtra. However, the High Court allowed the petitioner to approach the adjudicating authority with relevant documents proving tax payment in Maharashtra for reconsideration of the refund claim after due opportunity to both parties. – 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 co-insurance premium and reinsurance commission would not be considered as supply and thus, the petitioners are entitled to a refund. The amounts deposited by the petitioner were not towards discharge of tax liability, but merely deposits pursuant to the court's order pending final adjudication. Since the utilization of these amounts for tax payment was deferred, they do not fall under the exclusions from refund under Schedule III of the CGST Act. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the petitions 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 dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the show cause notice issued by the Respondents. The Court held that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) or its officials do not have jurisdiction to audit private companies like the Petitioner. Since the impugned show cause notice was not based on any audit undertaken by CAG/CERA, the Court did not delve into the issue of quashing the notice or prohibiting the Respondents from proceeding further. The Court found no infirmity in invoking the extended period of limitation as allegations of suppression or non-declaration were made in the show cause notice. The Court rejected the contention that the documents submitted or explanation offered by the Petitioner were not considered, stating that a show cause notice merely records a prima facie opinion and is not a judgment after adjudication. – 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 on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order. The petitioner challenged the assessment order citing limitation and violation of principles of natural justice. However, the Court held that whether the extended period of limitation applies and principles of natural justice were violated are mixed questions of fact and law best examined by the Appellate Authority. No serious jurisdictional error warranting interference by the High Court was established. The alleged procedural improprieties can be adequately addressed by the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court relegated the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy. – 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 petitions challenging the assessment orders for 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 on the grounds of limitation and violation of principles of natural justice. Regarding limitation, the court held that the extended due dates for filing returns fell within the limitation period after excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as per the Supreme Court's directions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessment orders were set aside for violating the statutory mandate of providing an opportunity for personal hearing u/s 75(4) of the GST Acts. The matters were remitted to the respective Assessing Officers to issue notices for personal hearing, hear the assessees if they appear, and pass orders within three months from the judgment date or the remaining limitation period, whichever is later. – 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 and treated it as a Show Cause Notice due to discrepancies between the Show Cause Notice and the assessment order, thereby violating principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The petitioner was granted four weeks to file objections with supporting documents, which the respondent must consider after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and pass orders in accordance with law. The writ 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

= = = = = = = =