Goods and Services Tax

No GST loss to Goa from out-of-state corporate billing: CM Sawant
GST
Dated:- 23-7-2025
PTI
Panaji, Jul 23 (PTI) Chief Minister Pramod Sawant has said Goa has not incurred any loss in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenue due to companies routing their sales and billing through corporate offices located outside the state.
In a written reply tabled in the Goa assembly on Tuesday during the ongoing monsoon session, Sawant, who also holds the finance portfolio, said the GST regime rolled out with effect from July 01, 2017 is a destination or consumption-based tax regime.
“Therefore, the tax on goods and/or services gets accrued to the State/UT where it is actually consumed,” Sawant said.
“Therefore, there is no question of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court upholds finality of composite SCN order, affirms wide appellate powers under Section 107(11) CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition seeking modification of the order adjudicating a composite SCN against the Petitioners and challenging the vires of N/N. 06/2020-Central Tax. The Court held that under Section 2(4) of the CGST Act, the Adjudicating Authority excludes the Appellate Authority, which has full power to consider the matter afresh on appeal under Section 107. The adjudication order was detailed and considered the Petitioners' submissions, including those related to multiple financial years. The legislative intent prohibits remanding the matter back to ensure finality, but the Appellate Authority may confirm, modify, or annul the order on merits. Reliance on precedents affirmed the wide scope of appellate powers under Section 107(11). Consequently, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the application for modification.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed for being three years late; limitation period strictly capped at 30 days under relevant rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the dismissal of the appeal filed three years and twenty days beyond the prescribed limitation period, affirming that the appellate authority's power to condone delay is strictly limited to thirty days. The court relied on established precedents interpreting analogous statutory provisions, emphasizing that no residual discretion exists to extend limitation beyond the specified period under the relevant Acts. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the order was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that courts and tribunals cannot entertain appeals filed beyond the statutory time frame except within narrowly prescribed limits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite GST show cause notices for multiple years violate Sections 73 and 74 limitation rules, must be issued yearly separately.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of a composite show cause notice (SCN) covering multiple financial years under the GST Act is impermissible. Each financial year constitutes a separate tax period with distinct limitation periods under Sections 73 and 74. The limitation of three or five years applies individually to each financial year and cannot be aggregated or carried forward to justify a bundled SCN. Issuing a single SCN for multiple years violates the statutory scheme, frustrates the limitation framework, and infringes the taxpayer's right to contest year-specific demands, resulting in jurisdictional overreach and rendering such orders void ab initio. The GST Act mandates SCNs to be issued based on the relevant tax period-monthly or annual returns-and prohibits issuance beyond the prescribed period. Accordingly, the petition challenging the bunching of SCNs was allowed, reaffirming that separate adjudication per financial year is legally required.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation upheld under Section 29(2)(c) for non-filing returns; restoration allowed with dues paid
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. However, acknowledging the serious civil consequences of such cancellation, the court directed that the petitioner may apply for restoration of registration by submitting all pending returns and paying outstanding tax dues, interest, and late fees in accordance with the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The empowered officer retains jurisdiction to consider the restoration application and pass appropriate orders within the statutory framework. The petitioner was granted two months to approach the concerned authority for restoration. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC refuses to hear petition on SCN issued via Form DRC-01A, directs appeal with first Appellate Authority under Income Tax Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC declined to adjudicate the petition challenging the SCN issued in Form DRC-01A on jurisdictional grounds related to reliance on Form 26AS under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that the petitioner must pursue remedy before the first Appellate Authority, which is directed to admit the appeal if filed within four weeks, waiving any additional pre-deposit requirements given the petitioner's prior payment of Rs. 7 lakhs. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Dredging and De-silting Services Classified as Pure Service with Nil GST Under Entry No. 3 Notification 12/2017
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant's dredging and de-silting services performed using Cutter Suction Dredger in specified river channels for the Government of West Bengal constitute a pure service without any supply of goods. The activity involves excavation and removal of silt without any construction or creation of dumping grounds, thereby excluding it from works contract or composite supply classifications. Consequently, the service satisfies all conditions under Entry No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The Authority ruled that the supply of dredging and removal of dredged materials falls within the scope of this entry, rendering the applicable GST rate as NIL.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal Dismissed for Non-Appearance, But Dismissal Set Aside for Lack of Fair Opportunity to Defend
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the appeal due to the petitioner's non-appearance, attributing it to a refusal to participate. However, the court found that respondent No.2 acted hastily by attempting to dispose of the matter at the initial hearing without affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their defense. The HC emphasized the necessity for respondent No.2 and similar officers to provide adequate chances for assessee participation before dismissal. Consequently, the HC set aside the dismissal and remitted the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration, allowing the petition.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Manpower Supply to WTL is Pure Service, No GST Exemption Under Notification 12/2017 Entry 3
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant's supply of personnel to WTL constitutes a pure service and not a composite supply or works contract. NKDA, constituted under the New Town Kolkata Development Authority Act, 2007, qualifies as a local authority; however, the service recipient is WTL, not NKDA, as payment flows from NKDA to WTL and then to the applicant on a back-to-back basis. Consequently, the applicant does not directly supply services to the local authority. Since all conditions of Entry No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) are not met, the exemption under the said notification is inapplicable. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the nil-rated GST exemption and must charge GST in its invoice to WTL for the manpower supply services rendered.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Single Show Cause Notice for Multiple Years Violates GST Act Sections 2(106), 73, 74, and 128 Rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of a single show cause notice encompassing multiple financial years contravenes the GST Act, which mandates that show cause notices must correspond to individual tax periods as defined under Section 2(106) and Sections 73/74. The Court emphasized that “bunching” violates principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, as each financial year constitutes a separate tax period. Furthermore, Section 128's provision for waiver schemes cannot justify pre-notification notices aggregating multiple years, as this imposes undue hardship on taxpayers. The Court clarified that show cause notices must be issued either based on annual returns after their filing or on monthly returns if issued prior to annual return submission. Accordingly, the petition challenging the validity of the multi-year show cause notice was allowed, reinforcing strict adherence to the statutory time limitation and procedural safeguards under the GST Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

70-Day Delay in Filing Appeal Condoned Under Section 107 of TNGST Act for Medical Reasons
Case-Laws
GST
The HC condoned a 70-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act against an Adjudication Order dated 07.01.2025, finding the petitioner's reasons-medical treatment of the managing partner and delayed knowledge of the order-genuine. The FORM GST APL-02 dated 23.06.2025 issued by the 1st respondent was quashed, and the appeal was restored on the 1st respondent's file. Restoration was conditional upon the petitioner's payment of Rs. 10,000 to the Principal Government Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital within two weeks of the order. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Quashes Penalty for Delayed GSTR-3B Filing Under Section 39, Orders Fresh Adjudication
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court set aside the impugned order which upheld the demand and penalty solely on the ground of delayed filing of GSTR-3B returns for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 under Section 39 of the GST Act. Without adjudicating on the merits, the matter was remanded to the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise Range-I, Division Ratlam for fresh adjudication in light of changed circumstances. The petition was disposed of by remand, directing reconsideration of the case afresh.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail Rejected for Tax Fraud Under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (i) of CGST Act for Fake Invoice Scam
Case-Laws
GST
The DSC rejected the bail application of the accused proprietor of M/S New Global Scrap Traders, charged under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, for fraudulent availing and utilization of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 23,47,68,801/- through fake invoices without actual supply of goods. The court found no violation of fundamental rights under Article 22(1) and (2). Given the gravity of the offence, evidence of issuance of bogus invoices, and risk of evidence tampering, witness influence, and flight, the accused was deemed unfit for bail at this stage. The prosecution's case demonstrated substantial material indicating deliberate tax evasion and fraud, justifying continued custodial detention to safeguard the investigation and public interest.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 129 GST Proceedings Require Proof of Mens Rea; Minor Invoice Errors Insufficient for Penalty
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that initiation of proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act requires proof of mens rea to evade tax. A minor discrepancy of one digit in the tax invoice and e-way bill did not establish such intent. Relying on precedent emphasizing the necessity of mens rea for penalty imposition, the Court found the impugned orders unsustainable. Consequently, the orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Final Opportunity Ordered for Petitioner to Present Case Before Authority Under Section 30 Deadline Set for Compliance
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order imposing the penalty, noting that although the petitioner was represented at the personal hearing and lost the right of appeal due to delay, the petitioner must be afforded one final opportunity to present their case before the authority. The petitioner is directed to communicate a certified copy of the HC order to the authority by 30 December 2024; failure to do so will result in automatic restoration of the original order. Upon receipt, the authority shall schedule a hearing to allow the petitioner a last chance to be heard and thereafter pass a fresh adjudicatory order. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Non-service of Show Cause Notice and denial of hearing violate natural justice; order set aside under relevant rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the non-service of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and denial of personal hearing constituted a violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the impugned order-in-original demanding recovery for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit against the Petitioners was set aside. The Court directed the Adjudicating Authority to adjudicate the SCN afresh after considering the Petitioners' reply and submissions. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order set aside for denying personal hearing under Section 75(4) of TNGST Act, remanded for fresh consideration
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice principles, as the respondent failed to provide the petitioner a personal hearing despite receiving a detailed 130-page reply. The Court emphasized the mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017, for affording an opportunity of personal hearing before passing such orders. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, directing that the petitioner be given a personal hearing to present their case on merits. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ of Mandamus orders quick disposal of tax appeal filed on unlawful money recovery under relevant laws
Case-Laws
GST
The HC issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to expeditiously consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal filed on 13.02.2025, challenging the order regarding tax imposition and recovery of money allegedly obtained through unlawful means. The Court emphasized the necessity for the appellate authority to act in a time-bound manner and to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law, taking into account relevant judicial precedents cited by the petitioner. The petition was allowed, mandating cooperation from the respondent and ensuring the appeal process proceeds without undue delay.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Sets Aside Orders Citing Natural Justice Violation, Remands Case for Fresh Hearing
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the petition by setting aside the impugned orders dated 8 June 2018, 17 February 2019, and 4 November 2019, and remanded the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the Appellate Authority improperly considered the Chartered Engineer's and Customer's Certificates without affording the Respondents an opportunity to challenge the evidence through cross-examination or to present their own evidence. The evidence was first introduced at the appellate stage, depriving the Respondents of a fair chance to contest it. Due to these procedural irregularities and the untested nature of the evidence, the HC deemed it unsafe to rely on the Appellate Authority's decision and directed a rehearing in accordance with law and on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Karnataka Commercial Taxes launches helpline for corruption complaints on UPI bribe demands under GST rules
News
GST
The Commercial Taxes Department in Karnataka has established a helpline to address corruption complaints, particularly involving bribe demands related to UPI transactions. The department received reports that some officials and intermediaries solicited bribes from traders under the guise of assistance. It emphasized a zero-tolerance policy and urged traders to report such incidents. The state government clarified that GST is a central government matter and not under its control. Discussions with the central government are planned regarding tax notices issued to small traders, which have led some to revert to cash transactions and organize protests. State officials attributed responsibility for the challenges faced by small traders to the central government, assuring that the state would take necessary measures to protect traders' interests.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Incorrect GSTR-3A Notices Sent Due to System Error, No Action Needed for Cancelled Registrations Before FY 2024-25
News
GST
Notices in Form GSTR-3A have been mistakenly issued to certain taxpayers, including those with cancelled registrations before the Financial Year 2024-25, due to a system glitch. These notices, typically sent for non-filing of Form GSTR-4 under Section 39(2) of the CGST Act and Rule 68 of the CGST Rules, are not applicable in these cases. The issue is under review, and corrective measures are being implemented. Taxpayers who have filed the return or whose registrations were cancelled before FY 2024-25 should disregard these notices, as no action is required. Any other concerns should be addressed through the Self-Service Portal with relevant details for resolution.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory : Regarding GSTR-3A Notices issued for non-filing of form GSTR 4 to cancelled Composition Taxpayers.
GST
Dated:- 21-7-2025

As per the provisions of Section 39(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, read with Rule 68 of the CGST Rules, 2017, notices in Form GSTR-3A are required to be issued in cases of non-filing of Form GSTR-4. However, it has come to notice that, due to a system-related glitch, such notices have been inadvertently issued in certain cas

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner must deposit 15% disputed tax; fresh GST proceedings to follow strict legal rules under Section 74.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 on terms, directing the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed tax, noting the petitioner had previously deposited 10% upon filing an appeal against the 05.12.2023 order. The Court acknowledged prior rulings balancing the interests of the assessee and revenue, mandating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with GST laws, excluding the pendency period from limitation computation. However, this principle was stayed by the Division Bench, and a contrary view from another High Court was noted, holding that jurisdictional challenges to proceedings initiated under the respondent's authority are impermissible even if the prior appeal is allowed. The petition was disposed of following compliance with the deposit condition, thereby affirming the continuation of proceedings subject to statutory adherence and interim financial safeguards.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Extraordinary Jurisdiction Denied Under Article 226 Without Pleadings Justifying Pre-Deposit Waiver
Case-Laws
GST
The HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, holding that the petition challenging an ex facie jurisdictional order is not maintainable in the absence of pleadings justifying waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. The court emphasized that the statutory regime, including pre-deposit, must be adhered to and alternative remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. Reliance on precedents confirmed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the efficacious alternate remedy available under the statutory framework. This decision underscores the principle that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies, especially where the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction and time limitations are applicable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund claim for accumulated ITC allowed; tax demand and penalty orders quashed under relevant legal provisions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the petitioners' refund application for accumulated ITC was within the statutory limitation period, relying on the precedent that struck down the relevant circular provision. Although a refund sanction order was issued, a subsequent demand notice and Order-in-Original confirming a tax demand with penalty were challenged. The court found the impugned orders dated 31.3.2023 and 29.2.2024 illegal and unsustainable, quashing and setting aside both the refund rejection and the appeal order. The petition was allowed, thereby validating the refund claim and negating the subsequent tax demand and penalty.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =