Goods and Services Tax

CGST Delhi South Commissionerate busts a racket that fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs.47.12 crore in iron one arrested
GST
Dated:- 4-8-2025

The Anti-Evasion Branch of CGST Delhi South Commissionerate has unearthed a large-scale fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) racket involving a Naraina-based taxpayer engaged in trading of iron and steel items. The case involves fraudulent availment and passing on of ITC totaling Rs.47.12 crore, based on bogus invoices against a taxable value of approximately Rs.261 crore, without any actual supply of goods.
Acting on specific intelligence developed by the Anti-Evasion wing, an investigation was initiated into a suspicious supply chain. The inquiry revealed that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory 60-Day Limit Under Section 54(7) WBGST Act Crucial for Refund Orders; Timelines and Jurisdiction Strictly Enforced
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the 60-day time limit under Section 54(7) of the WBGST Act, 2017 for passing an order on a refund application is mandatory and any non-compliance vitiates the order passed under Section 54(5). The PO must consider the applicant's reply and provide an opportunity of hearing within this period. The scrutiny and acknowledgment of the re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Limitation for Tax Refund Claims Starts from IGST Deposit Date Under Section 77 and Rule 19(1A)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the limitation period for claiming a refund of excess taxes paid under Section 77 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 19 of the IGST Act and Rule 19(1A), commences from the date of deposit of the tax under the IGST Act, not from the date of SGST and CGST deposit. The Respondent authority erred in computing limitation from January 2018, rendering the st

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Alternative Remedy Exists Under Section 107 of the Act of 2017
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The petitioners' grievance, despite alleged violation of natural justice by the CGST authority for non-supply of relevant documents, must be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism. The court emphasized that it will not entert

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 6(2)(b) bars multiple tax proceedings on the same matter under WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (2)(b)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 bar initiation of multiple proceedings on the same subject matter by different authorities. The petitioner faced three separate proceedings by State authorities for tax periods 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021 under Section 73, addressing claims of exempted supply and alleged suppression of fact

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

One-Day Delay in Filing Appeal Against Ex Parte Order Condoned Due to Holiday Falling on Deadline
Case-Laws
GST
The HC condoned a one-day delay in filing an appeal against an ex parte assessment order, which was originally due on a Sunday, a public holiday. The petitioner filed the appeal the following day, exceeding the prescribed period by one day. The respondent rejected the appeal for being time-barred. The HC found the reason for the delay genuine and held that the delay warranted

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Loading and Transport Services to SEZ Units Are Zero-Rated Under Section 16(1)(b) of IGST Act, 2017
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that services consisting of loading, transporting, stacking, and rack loading of bauxite provided to a SEZ unit qualify as cargo handling services integral to authorized operations. Such services supplied to a SEZ developer or unit are regarded as inter-state supplies and thereby classified as zero-rated supplies under Section 16(1)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017. Con

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST on Rice and Wheat Flour Now Based on Packaging Compliance, Not Brand Name Status
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that post 18 July 2022, the distinction between “Registered Brand Name” and “Brand Name” is abolished for GST purposes. Consequently, GST liability on commodities such as rice and wheat flour (atta), whether pre-packaged and labeled or not, must be determined solely based on compliance with the Legal Metrological Act regarding pre-packaging and labeling, irrespective of weight

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Operations with permanent service setup and stored goods qualify as fixed establishment under GST Section 2(71)
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant's operations in Odisha, involving repair and maintenance services through Field Service Engineers and storage of spare parts and tool kits, constitute a fixed establishment rather than a temporary place. Given the permanence of the applicant's presence and storage of goods at the Odisha location for fulfilling maintenance contracts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Applicant's supply not a “pure service” under Notification 12/2017 due to mixed goods and service charges
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant's supply does not constitute a “pure service” as defined under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, since the consideration received included both the procurement value of goods and service charges without segregation. The applicant failed to satisfy clause (d) of the relevant explanation, which requires distinct

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC Denied on Electricity for Township Maintenance and Exempt DCS Supplies Before 5-7-2022 Under Section 16(1) CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the petitioner is not entitled to ITC on electricity consumed for township maintenance, as such consumption is not in the course or furtherance of business under Section 16(1) of the CGST Act. ITC on exempt supply of DCS prior to 5-7-2022 was disallowed, as the sale of DCS was exempt and excluded from ITC eligibility. The amendment dated

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Show Cause Notice to Deceased Proprietor Invalid Under Section 93; Notice Must Go to Legal Representative
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) to a deceased proprietor of a firm is impermissible, as section 93 contemplates liability only when the business continues or is discontinued post-death, and mandates issuance of notice to the legal representative. The provision does not authorize determination or recovery against a deceased individual. In the pres

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty upheld under Section 129(3) CGST Act for false E-Way Bill loading location despite no tax evasion intent
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the levy of penalty under section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, for violation of Rule 138 of the GST Rules, 2017. The petitioner's claim of no intent to evade tax was rejected due to discrepancies between the declared E-Way Bill loading point and the actual GPS-verified loading location. The vehicle's prolonged stay at R

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail Denied Under Section 69 CGST Act for Fraudulent ITC Claims and GST Evasion of Rs. 57.82 Lakh
Case-Laws
GST
The DSC dismissed the bail application of the accused, a key partner of the manufacturing firm, arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act for clandestine supply of goods without invoicing and fraudulent availing of ITC. Investigation revealed extensive cash transactions amounting to approximately Rs. 70 crore, misuse of input tax credit exceeding Rs. 9.32 crore, and GST evasio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order set aside for ignoring petitioner's reply; case remanded for fresh consideration under natural justice principles
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Patna-II, holding that the petitioner's reply was not duly considered, resulting in a violation of natural justice. The authority determined service tax liability due to the petitioner's failure to furnish work agreements and payment certificates for sp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proceedings for Excess Stock Under GST Must Follow Sections 73/74, Not Section 130: Orders Quashed
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that initiation of proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act is impermissible where excess stock is found during a survey. Instead, proceedings must be initiated under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act for tax recovery. The Court emphasized that the law consistently mandates the use of sections 73/74 in such cases, rejecting invocation of section 130 read with t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transitional GST Credit Allowed Despite Initial Tran-3 Form Filing Issues Under Excise Act Provisions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's transitional credit and related demands arising from the failure to upload the Tran-3 Form during the initial GST transition period. The petitioner was entitled to file fresh Tran Forms within the prescribed window, which they duly did. The respondents' reliance on the circular to deny this opportunity was held

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Regular Bail Granted Under Section 132 CGST Act Despite Ongoing Co-Accused Investigations, Emphasizing Individual Assessment
Case-Laws
GST
The HC granted regular bail to the petitioners charged under Section 132 of the CGST Act, rejecting the denial of bail solely due to pending investigation against co-accused. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must be individualized, considering the accused's specific role, nature of accusations, evidence, and other relevant factors. The petiti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST and penalty upheld for failing to upload Part B of E-Way Bill under Section 129 and Rule 138 violations
Case-Laws
GST
The HC upheld the levy of GST and penalty on the petitioner for failing to generate and upload Part B of the E-Way bill, specifically the vehicle details, in violation of Section 129 of the GST Act and Rule 138 of the CGST Rules. The Court affirmed that the primary responsibility to generate Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 lies with the registered person initiating the mov

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST & Central Excise Raigad Commissionerate arrests two persons for fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit of Rs. 9 crore through shell firms in New Panvel, Raigad, Mumbai Zone
GST
Dated:- 2-8-2025

A team of officers of Anti-Evasion, CGST & Central Excise Raigad Commissionerate, Mumbai Zone, yesterday arrested two persons involved in generating and fraudulently passing on Input tax Credit (ITC) of more than Rs. 9 crore by creating fictitious firms and issuing invoices without actual supply of goods/service.
Acting upon intelligence, the team identified the shell firms being operated by the accused to avail and pass on fake ITC. M/s. Jaisha Metals Private Limited availed ineligible credit passed on by non-existent firms regist

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty under Section 129(3) of GST Act set aside due to vehicle breakdown causing delay in e-way bill re-validation
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for failure to re-validate the e-way bill within the prescribed 8-hour period, accepting the petitioner's claim of vehicle breakdown causing a 15-hour delay. The Court noted the absence of wilful misconduct or tax fraud and found the appellate authority erred in dismissing

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proceedings Under Section 130 Not Allowed for Excess Stock Discovery; Use Sections 73 or 74 Instead
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that initiation of proceedings under section 130 of the UPGST Act based on the discovery of excess stock during a survey is impermissible. The Court reaffirmed that such findings warrant proceedings under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act instead, as section 130 is not applicable in cases of excess stock. Consequently, the impugned order initiating proceedings und

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's Late Input Tax Credit Claim in GSTR-3B for FY 2018-19 Referred for Reconsideration Under Finance Act 2024
Case-Laws
GST
The HC addressed the petitioner's erroneous claim of input tax credit (ITC) filed after the due date in GSTR-3B returns for FY 2018-19, which was disallowed in the original order. The petitioner's rectification application, submitted on 14.02.2025 to the Superintendent, Central GST & Excise, remains pending. The court refrained from adjudicating the merits

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Dismissed for Delay Under Section 107(1) GST Act; Appellate Authority to Reconsider ITC Issues
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, declining to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The petition challenged the disallowance of ITC on grounds that the supplier failed to discharge tax liability by filing GSTR-3B returns for supplies made during August to November 2019.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proper Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) is mandatory; orders without it violate natural justice and are quashed
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of a proper, duly authenticated Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73(1) is mandatory and cannot be supplanted by a summary notice in GST DRC-01 or an attached tax determination statement. The impugned orders under Section 73(9) were quashed for lack of valid SCN issuance and failure to provide an opportunity of hearing as requir

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =