Author: admin_gst

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The appellant M/s. Gajanand Foods P Ltd's various flour mixes containing spices and ingredients like sugar, semolina, salt, sesame seed, chili powder, garam masala, etc. in addition to flours of dried leguminous vegetables, rice and wheat, were held to be excluded from classification under Chapter Heading 1102 or 1106 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 attracting 18% GST. The products cannot be considered as mere flours improved by addition of very small quantities of specified substances. The appeal filed by the appellant against the Advance Ruling passed by the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling rejected by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling. – 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 assessment order dated 06.08.2024, holding that the Assessing Authority violated the principles of natural justice by denying an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner despite a specific request. Although the show-cause notice indicated 'NA' for personal hearing, the petitioner marked 'Yes' in the reply and sought an opportunity. The Court ruled that any previous opportunity before issuing the show-cause notice was inconsequential. The impending expiry of the limitation period did not justify denying a hearing. The authorities were directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. – 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 orders denying refund application, based on the respondents' clarification that refund would not be denied if export proceeds are realized in Indian Rupees routed through a non-resident bank's freely convertible Vostro account outside the Asian Clearing Union or Nepal and Bhutan. However, the respondents contended that the applicability of the clarificatory circular to all exports or specific commodities required examination, and this aspect was kept open for verification by the respondents. – 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, modifying the requirement to deposit only 10% of the remaining disputed tax amount for the impugned order to remain stayed. This decision was based on a Central revenue notification dated 16th August, 2024, reducing the deposit to 10%, and a corresponding State revenue notification dated 29th October, 2024. The petitioner's submission regarding the reduced deposit requirement of 10% for the first appellate order to remain stayed was accepted by the High Court. – 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 challenging the orders issued by the adjudicating authority u/s 62 of the CGST/SGST Acts. The Court held that the petitioner failed to file an appeal against the orders within the limitation period prescribed u/s 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts. Furthermore, the petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition after an inordinate delay of four years from the date of issuance of the orders, which is another ground for dismissal. Consequently, the High Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. – 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 petitioner failed to establish lack of jurisdiction for issuance of the show cause notice (SCN) by the State Tax Authority, despite the absence of a notification u/s 6(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court opined that a notification is required only when restrictions or conditions are to be imposed on the exercise of power by officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act. However, considering the contrary view expressed by the Madras High Court in Tvl. Vardhan Infrastructure, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. – 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 in part and directed the respondents to restore the input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 9,83,53,032/- in the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger within four weeks. The Court held that the reversal of ITC by the respondents during the summons proceedings without an adjudication process was a violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Sections 16, 41, and 73/74 of the CGST Act. The ITC was initially claimed by the petitioner for exports and was debited twice, once during the summons proceedings and again when filing the refund application, leading to the Court's directive to restore the ITC 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 dismissed the petition challenging the notice in Form ASMT-10 issued by the state authorities for blocking the electronic credit/cash ledger. The court held that the state authorities acted within their powers by blocking the input tax credit (ITC) u/r 86A of the GST Rules, 2017, as they had reasons to believe that the ITC of Rs. 13.10 crores was fraudulently availed. The court clarified that u/r 86A, the authorities can block the debit of an amount equivalent to the fraudulently availed ITC from the electronic credit ledger, irrespective of whether the ITC was available or already utilized. The issuance of Form DRC-01A by the central authorities for Rs. 71,798/- and remittance of the same did not determine the entire issue raised in Form ASMT-10 by the state 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 petitioner had wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) which was reversed in the GSTR-3B filed for February 2020. Despite admitting the reversal, the second respondent included the demand for the wrongly availed ITC in the DRC-07 notice. The High Court held that the reason provided by the second respondent for including the demand was unacceptable. The demand under item No.3 of the impugned DRC-07 notice was set aside as erroneous since the first respondent had already ordered the reversal to be treated as payment u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. For other claims, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the concerned Authority seeking amnesty. – 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 order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration retrospectively from July 2, 2017. The cancellation was held to be effective from January 15, 2023, the date of issuance of the show cause notice. The court found that the absence of reasons in the show cause notice for retrospective cancellation rendered the impugned order unsustainable. The allegation of failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months u/s 39 of the GST Act formed the basis for the cancellation 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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of clauses (c) & (d) of Section 17(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Supreme Court had previously upheld the validity of these clauses in the case of M/s Safari Retreats Private Ltd. However, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue of whether the construction of immovable property carried out by the petitioner amounts to a 'plant' within the meaning of Section 17(5)(d) of the Act, subject to adjudication based on the facts and the functionality test laid down by the Supreme Court. – 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, quashing the impugned order dated February 27, 2024. The Court held that the delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner was due to circumstances beyond their control. The rigid approach adopted by the Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal solely on timing considerations without considering the genuine extenuating circumstances was legally unsound and reflected a lack of judicial empathy. Moreover, the petitioner's statutory right to a higher appeal was obstructed due to the non-formation of the GST Appellate Tribunal. In light of the procedural irregularities, arbitrary actions, and misapplication of statutory provisions, the High Court found the petitioner's case meritorious and allowed the writ 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

= = = = = = = =

Gross and Net GST revenue collections for the month of Nov, 2024 – Goods and Services Tax – GST Dated:- 2-12-2024 – News – Gross and Net GST revenue collections for the month of Nov, 2024 Dated:- 2-

= = = = = = = =

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 permission to rectify/amend the GST number of the purchaser in GSTR-1 return after the expiration of the limitation period u/s 37(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court held that if a person submits an erroneous GSTR-1 and does not correct it within the timeline, the subsequent GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B would also reflect the erroneous information, leading to cascading effects. The time limitation u/ss 37(1) and 37(3) is directly linked to Section 16(4), which allows input tax credit to be availed till the due date of furnishing the return u/s 39 for the month of September following the end of the financial year or furnishing of the annual return, whichever is earlier. The petitioner could not rectify the error beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the GST Act. – 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 cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The appeal against the cancellation order was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court held that it cannot condone the delay in filing the appeal under its extraordinary jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no power to condone the delay after the expiry of the statutory period for filing appeals under the relevant law. The Court observed that while it has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot disregard the substantive provisions of the statute and pass orders contrary to the mechanism prescribed therein. Consequently, no interference was warranted in the impugned orders, and the petition was dismissed. – 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 order dated 27.03.2024 bearing No. ACCT (Audit)-2/HPT/GST-ADJN/ORDER-2023/24/T for F.Y.2018-19 passed by respondent No. 1 and partly allowed the writ petition. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned by granting relief to the petitioner in line with the orders passed in the case of M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering Services, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case without examining the correctness of the Appellate Authority's order refusing to condone the delay u/s 107(4) of the KGST Act. – 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 02.02.2024 rejecting the Rectification Application filed by the petitioner. The court found that the order lacked reasoning as to why there was no error apparent on the record to reject rectification. The court held that when an assessee seeks rectification, and the same is rejected without considering reasons or providing an opportunity to the assessee, it is contrary to Section 161. Consequently, the Rectification Application filed by the petitioner shall be considered afresh by the respondent after providing an opportunity to the petitioner, and appropriate orders shall be passed 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 anticipatory bail to the petitioners who were accused of fraudulently claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) by creating fake forms, forging bills, and showing fictitious transactions through dummy firms. The court held that the allegations prima facie attract offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for availing ITC fraudulently based on false documents and sham transactions, as well as penal provisions under the GST law. While prosecution under two different enactments is permissible as per Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the court noted that the petitioners had already been prosecuted u/s 132 of the CGST Act for the same allegations and had remained in custody for a substantial period. Considering the overlapping nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioners were not absconding, and their previous custody, the court granted them 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 High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the Order-in-Original issued under the CGST/AGST Act, 2017, denying input tax credit (ITC) and refund of ITC on zero-rated supplies. The Court held that the petitioner was provided an adequate opportunity to respond to the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice but failed to submit an effective reply or avail personal hearing after seeking time. Principles of natural justice were not violated. The petitioner was directed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal u/s 107 of the CGST/AGST Act against the Order-in-Original, instead of directly approaching the High Court through a writ 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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court set aside the order cancelling the Petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation order by the quasi-judicial authority suffered from non-application of mind as it failed to assign any reason, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Petitioner's registration was restored to the status prior to the issuance of the show cause notice dated 02.02.2022. – 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 challenging the Order-in-Original and held that the petitioner has an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal u/s 107 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 against the Order-in-Original. The Court observed that it does not generally entertain writ petitions in revenue matters where the petitioner has a statutory remedy available. The Court found that there was no total violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was provided an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. The Court disposed of the writ petition, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. – 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 directed the respondent No. 2, a government entity, to pay the petitioner the difference in GST amount at the enhanced rate of 18% instead of 12% for the period from 01.01.2022 to 30.09.2022 within three months, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of entitlement. The Court rejected the objections raised by respondents No. 2 & 3 regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and availability of alternative remedy under the Arbitration Act, as no disputed questions of fact were involved in 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 – Principles of natural justice violated due to non-service of notices. Petitioner unaware of show cause notices issued through GST portal. Impugned order passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing, violating natural justice principles. Court set aside impugned orders and consequential provisional attachment order on condition of depositing 10% of disputed tax amount within four weeks. Petition 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 – Cancellation of GST registration without providing opportunity to be heard violated principles of natural justice. Appeal filed by petitioner rejected due to expiry of limitation period u/s 107 of CGST Act, 2017. Show cause notice issued to petitioner for failure to furnish returns for six consecutive months. Petitioner claimed no reply filed within stipulated period, denying principles of natural justice. However, petitioner failed to furnish returns for six months and filed appeal after delay of one year and twenty days, beyond three-month limitation period u/s 107(1). Petitioner's lethargic approach in not filing returns and delayed appeal filing led to dismissal of writ petition, as no perversity found in cancellation order or appellate order beyond statutory 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's decision centers around the interpretation of Section 83 of the CGST/SGST Acts, which deals with provisional attachment orders. The key points are: Section 83(2) clearly states that a provisional attachment order will cease to have effect after one year from its issuance. Unlike the Income Tax Act, the GST Acts do not provide for extending this one-year period. The court held that accepting the Revenue's contention of issuing repeated attachment orders would violate the statute's language and legislative intent. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents like Radha Krishnan Industries and Vodafone International Holdings, which emphasize interpreting statutes based on their plain meaning and not supplying words or giving different meanings, even if it serves a larger public interest. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned attachment orders, declaring that Section 83 does not authorize fresh attachment orders after the one-year period specified in Section 83(2). – 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

= = = = = = = =