Goods and Services Tax

GST Council reconstitutes GoM on GST revenue analysis, expands ToR
GST
Dated:- 6-3-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Mar 6 (PTI) The GST Council has reconstituted the Group of Ministers on GST revenue analysis which will suggest sector-specific issues that need policy intervention, and the feasibility of a unified enforcement platform to check tax evasion.
The GST Council, in its 55th meeting on December 21, 2024, had decided to reconstitute the Group of Ministers (GoM) on GST revenue analysis with a revised ToR. The GoM was first set up in 2019.
The reconstituted GoM on 'Analysis of Revenue from GST' under Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, would have nine members including from the states of Bihar (Samrat Chaudhary), Chhattisgarh (O P Chou

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

mpact of amendments made in GST acts and rules.
Goods and Services Tax (GST) was rolled out on July 1, 2017. Since then the Act and its rules have been amended to make it easier for businesses after approval of the GST Council, chaired by Union Finance Minister and comprising state counterparts.
The GOM would “review and recommend harmonisation of anti-evasion, audit, scrutiny tools developed by various agencies (NIC, GSTN, DGARM, state governments) to create a unified enforcement and compliance platform”.
It would also suggest suitable measures/policy intervention for course correction for revenue augmentation, particularly for states suffering high revenue shortfall.
The expanded ToR of the GoM comes at a time when another GoM, under

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bank's Challenge to GST Show Cause Notice Rejected as Premature Since Administrative Remedies Not Yet Exhausted
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed petition challenging SCN issued by Commissioner CGST. Court found SCN contained detailed justification for invoking IGST Act 2017, CGST Act 2017, and J&K GST Act 2017 against petitioner-Bank. Court held Bank retains right to respond to SCN, raise jurisdictional objections, and demonstrate transactions fall outside scope of relevant GST legislation. Court determined premature intervention unnecessary as adequate administrative remedy exists through response to SCN. Bank can present defense regarding transaction's taxability under respective GST laws during response proceedings. Petition dismissed allowing statutory process to proceed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional Attachment Under GST Section 83 Automatically Lapses After One Year, Cannot Be Extended Beyond Time Limit
Case-Laws
GST
Provisional attachment order under Section 83 of WBGST/CGST Act 2017 challenged before HC. Court determined that provisional attachment automatically lapses after one year from date of order under Section 83(1). The attachment order dated April 13, 2023, expired through efflux of time and cannot be enforced against petitioner. However, authorities retain right to proceed against petitioner based on independent cause of action or enforce demand through other legal means. Court's ruling specifically addresses temporal limitation of provisional attachment while preserving revenue authorities' broader enforcement powers under applicable law. Petition disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Demand Order Quashed: Adjudicating Authority Failed to Consider Binding Departmental Circulars 200/12/2023-GST and 236/30/2024-GST
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside GST demand order dated 21.11.2024 for non-consideration of binding departmental circulars (No.200/12/2023-GST and No.236/30/2024-GST). Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for fresh consideration specifically accounting for these clarificatory circulars. Petitioner granted leave to file additional application demonstrating applicability of circular benefits to their case. The court determined that appellate remedy would be futile since the fundamental issue was non-consideration of binding administrative guidelines. Authority directed to pass fresh order after evaluating circular benefits as claimed by petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition Dismissed: GST Department Witness Summons Upheld for Evidence Gathering Despite Records Access Challenge
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed petition challenging lower court's order allowing respondent to summon GST Department witness. Court held that since GST records were not in respondent's possession, they could rightfully request witness testimony, subject to Rs. 3,000/- costs. The principle of plaintiff's burden of proof was upheld, affirming their discretion to determine necessary witnesses and documentation. While irrelevant evidence would be disregarded, the Court maintained that plaintiffs cannot be denied their right to present their case as they deem appropriate during the evidentiary stage. The ruling emphasizes procedural fairness in evidence gathering despite potential relevancy concerns.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Government Notices Under Section 168A of CGST Act Challenged Over Limitation Period and Jurisdictional Issues
Case-Laws
GST
HC reviewed challenges to Garnishee Notice, Show Cause Notice, and notifications issued under Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017. Multiple similar petitions were pending across jurisdictions, with Gauhati HC striking down the contested notifications. While Telangana HC ruled favorably based on SC's limitation extension order, that decision faces appeal in SC. Given the complex jurisdictional landscape and pending matters before SC, HC determined petitioner established grounds for both admission and interim relief. The substantive questions regarding validity of notifications and limitation period remain subject to final determination by SC. Petition disposed of with interim protection granted.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST Summons Valid Despite Ongoing State GST Case: Search Operations Not Barred Under Sections 73-74
Case-Laws
GST
Central GST authorities issued summons following a search operation, despite ongoing State GST proceedings. The HC held that statutory prohibition against parallel proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 specifically pertains to assessment proceedings, not investigative actions. Search-based summons are distinct from assessment proceedings as they aim to gather information potentially unavailable during original assessment. The Court distinguished between assessment proceedings and investigative measures, noting that Section 6(2)(b) applies to interrelated events in a particular chain. Since the search occurred after previous assessments, it constitutes a separate proceeding. The summons were deemed valid as investigative tools that may lead to future proceedings. Petition challenging the validity of CGST summons dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Healthcare Provider's Diamond Plan Service Tax Exemption Denied Due to Insufficient Documentation Under Notification 12/2017-Central Tax
Case-Laws
GST
AAAR rejected appellant's appeal concerning service tax exemption for a 20-year “Diamond Plan” healthcare service package under Sr. No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax. The appellant provided insufficient documentation, submitting only a basic plan outline and single bill of supply No. 3/2021-22 dated 12.8.2021. The authority determined these documents were inadequate to properly evaluate the exemption claim for the lump-sum healthcare services agreement. Without comprehensive documentation demonstrating the nature and scope of services, the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Treatment Plant's Water Classified as Demineralized Under GST, Losing Exemption Status Despite Lab Certificate Challenge
Case-Laws
GST
AAAR upheld that treated water from Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) constitutes demineralized water, making it ineligible for GST exemption under Notification No. 02/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate). The appellant's laboratory certificate was rejected as it was introduced at appellate stage, lacked accreditation details, and failed to specify sample collection methodology. While circulars exempt drinking water for public purposes (if unsealed) and treated sewage water under heading 2201, the subject water was classified differently. The AAAR maintained that the appellant failed to effectively challenge the original ruling's classification of the treated water as demineralized, thereby sustaining GST liability. Appeal dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Lumpsum EPC Contract Including High Seas Sale Goods Must Be Taxed As Single Transaction Under GST Section 15
Case-Laws
GST
AAAR ruled that in a lumpsum turnkey EPC contract between Company A and Company B, the contract cannot be legally divided into separate parts despite high seas sale (HSS) of goods. The contract was deemed indivisible as the appellant was contractually obligated to provide both goods and services. While HSS transactions are neither supply of goods nor services under Schedule III of CGST Act, the value of imported goods sold on HSS basis must be included in the transaction value for GST calculation under Section 15. The AAAR rejected appellant's reliance on BSNL and Gannon Dunkerley precedents, affirming that the contract's integrated nature requires inclusion of HSS goods value in overall GST computation. Appeal dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Failure to Prove Physical Movement of Goods Results in Seizure Under Section 129 of GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld seizure of goods under GST Act due to petitioner's failure to establish actual physical movement of goods from West Bengal/Assam to Delhi via Kanpur. Following precedent from SC in Ecom Gill Coffee Trading, burden of proof in original proceedings lies with assessee to demonstrate genuine transactions and physical movement of goods. Petitioner failed to provide essential evidence like truck numbers or toll receipts documenting the journey. Court affirmed that under-valuation with intent to evade tax justifies seizure under Section 129 of GST Act. Seizure was deemed lawful as petitioner failed to declare true value of goods and provide supporting documentation. Petition dismissed as no grounds found for interference with impugned order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Claims Under GST Valid Within Extended Timeline Despite Section 16(4) Bar Under Section 16(5)
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed assessment order concerning Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims under GST regime. The matter involved interpretation of limitation periods under Section 16(4) and 16(5) of CGST Act, 2017. Following precedent in similar cases, Court held that while ITC claims were barred under Section 16(4), they remained valid within the extended limitation period provided under Section 16(5). The ruling effectively preserved petitioner's right to claim ITC within the extended statutory timeframe despite exceeding initial limitation period. Writ petition allowed with directive to reassess ITC claims in accordance with Section 16(5) parameters.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Claims Valid Under Section 16(5) Despite Exceeding Initial Time Limit Under Section 16(4)
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed order relating to Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims that were time-barred under Section 16(4) of CGST Act but fell within limitation under Section 16(5). Following precedent from Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries case, Court determined that while ITC claims exceeded initial limitation period under Section 16(4), they remained valid within extended timeframe provided by Section 16(5). Consequently, original tax assessment order, penalties, and interest charges were set aside to extent they denied ITC claims falling within Section 16(5) period. Writ petition allowed, affirming taxpayer's right to claim ITC within extended statutory timeframe despite exceeding initial limitation period.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Assessment Order Nullified Due to Denial of Personal Hearing Under Section 75(4), Matter Remanded for Fresh Consideration
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed GST assessment order dated 22.04.2024 for violation of natural justice principles under Section 75(4) of GST Act, 2017. Despite petitioner filing two detailed replies (25.01.2024 and 14.03.2024) to Form GST DRC-01 notice, respondent authority passed final order without granting mandatory personal hearing. The scheduling of hearing dates (03.01.2024 and 11.03.2024) prior to reply submission deadlines (25.01.2024 and 14.03.2024 respectively) was procedurally improper. Matter remanded back to respondent authority for fresh consideration after providing proper hearing opportunity to petitioner in accordance with statutory provisions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

PVC Raincoats Classified Under HSN 3926 20 As Plastic Articles For 18% GST Based On Material Composition
Case-Laws
GST
AAR ruled PVC raincoats must be classified under HSN 3926 20 (plastic articles) rather than HSN 6201 (textile garments), attracting 18% GST. While raincoats function as garments/apparel in common usage, the primary material composition of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) determines classification. PVC sheets cannot be considered woven fabric or textile materials. The ruling follows the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, where specific provisions prevail over general ones. Despite being worn as apparel, the plastic composition makes it classifiable under “Articles of apparel and clothing accessories” in the plastics chapter, subject to Schedule-III tax rate regardless of price point.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

PVC Raincoats Classified Under HSN 3926 20 for GST Based on Plastic Material Composition Rather Than Apparel Use
Case-Laws
GST
AAR ruled PVC raincoats must be classified under HSN Code 3926 20 (plastic articles) rather than HSN 6201 (textile garments). Despite functioning as apparel, PVC raincoats are primarily composed of polyvinyl chloride, not textile fabric. PVC sheets cannot be considered woven fabric or textile material in common trade practice. Following the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, the specific composition of the item prevails over its general use as apparel. The ruling confirmed PVC raincoats attract 18% GST under Schedule-III Entry 111 of relevant GST notifications, regardless of price point. The classification is based on material composition rather than utility.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

PVC Raincoats Classified Under HSN 3926 20 as Plastic Articles, Not Textile Garments, Subject to 18% GST Rate
Case-Laws
GST
AAR ruled PVC raincoats must be classified under HSN 3926 20 (plastic articles) rather than HSN 6201 (textile garments), attracting 18% GST. Though raincoats function as garments/apparel in common usage, their primary composition of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) determines classification. The authority rejected applicant's argument for textile classification, noting PVC sheets cannot be considered woven fabric or textile material. Following the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, the specific material composition prevails over general garment usage. The ruling confirmed applicability of Schedule-III Entry 111 of GST notifications, regardless of the raincoat's price point, maintaining 18% rate uniformly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Liquidator Must Register for GST When Selling Company Assets During Insolvency Under Section 7 and 24 CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
Sale of assets by NCLT-appointed liquidator for Company A in liquidation constitutes supply of goods/services under Section 7 of CGST Act 2017. AAR ruled that liquidator must obtain mandatory GST registration per Section 24 of CGST/WBGST Acts, following special procedures outlined in Notifications 11/2020-CT and 39/2020-CT. These notifications specifically address corporate debtors under IBC 2016 whose affairs are managed by IRP/RP during insolvency resolution. Decision aligns with previous AAR ruling that liquidator-conducted asset sales qualify as taxable supply requiring GST registration. The registration requirement applies from liquidator's appointment until completion of corporate insolvency process.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Department Barred from Coercive Recovery After Time Limit Extension Under Section 168A CGST Act Challenged
Case-Laws
GST
HC granted interim relief against coercive action following show cause notices issued under extended time limits per Section 168A CGST Act notifications. Petitioner challenged validity of notifications dated December 28, 2023 and January 16, 2024 that extended statutory time limits under Sections 73/74. Following precedent from Aspect Integrated IT case, court found strong prima facie case meriting stay, particularly regarding notification validity and consequent order legitimacy. Parties retain liberty to reapply based on Supreme Court's eventual determination of the matter. Order digitally authenticated by court registry.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Milling Services to Government for PDS Atta Production Qualify as Exempt Composite Supply Under Entry 3A
Case-Laws
GST
AAR determined that milling services provided to State Government qualify as composite supply with milling as principal supply. The services involve crushing wheat into fortified wholemeal atta and packaging. The supply relates to Public Distribution System, a function entrusted to Panchayat under Article 243G. Total supply value was Rs. 260.48, with goods component (fortification and packing) at Rs. 60.00, constituting 23.03% of total value. Since goods value is below 25% threshold and service relates to Panchayat^OC”Os constitutional function, the composite supply qualifies for exemption under Sl. No. 3A of Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Central GST Show Cause Notice Quashed as State GST Audit Already Initiated Under Section 70 for Same Tax Issues
Case-Laws
GST
State GST authorities initiated audit proceedings where petitioner acknowledged tax shortfall based on audit findings. Subsequently, Central GST issued show cause notice on same matter. HC quashed the impugned order, holding that audit constitutes “proceedings” as per G.K. Trading Company precedent. The court determined that Central authorities' summons under section 70 was issued after state audit commenced, constituting parallel proceedings on identical subject matter. Following Liberty Oil Mills interpretation of “investigation” as evidence collection process, HC found dual proceedings impermissible. Since both state and central actions concerned same tax issues, and state proceedings began first through audit, the petition was allowed and central proceedings were invalidated.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Claims Under Section 16(5) CGST Act Valid Despite Time Limits When Filed Before November 2021
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim under CGST Act. Following precedent in Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries case, Court held that despite limitation under Section 16(4), petitioner entitled to claim ITC for FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 due to retrospective amendment introducing Section 16(5) effective from 01.07.2017. Department restrained from initiating proceedings against petitioner based on limitation grounds where claims filed before 30.11.2021. Amendment's retrospective application overrides original time limitation restrictions, enabling taxpayers to avail previously time-barred ITC claims within new prescribed timeframe. Petition allowed with costs.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Registration Cancellation Invalid: GST Officials Failed to Verify Business Closure Before Canceling Active Taxpayer's Registration Under Section 29
Case-Laws
GST
HC overturned GST registration cancellation where authorities had cancelled registration upon finding business premises closed during inspection. Petitioner demonstrated regular tax payments and returns filing, explaining temporary 10-day closure due to proprietor's overseas travel during Diwali holidays. Court found this explanation genuine and directed GST Network to restore registration within one week. Petitioner ordered to file pending returns with applicable taxes, interest, and late fees within 4 weeks of restoration. Court emphasized that registration cancellation was premature without proper verification of business cessation, particularly given petitioner's consistent compliance history and valid explanation for temporary closure.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Works Contract Services for Railway Infrastructure Development Qualifies for 12% GST Rate Under Concessional Notification
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that works contract services for railway infrastructure development executed between petitioner and RVNL qualifies for concessional GST rate of 12% under relevant notifications. The term “railway” in notification extends beyond Indian Railways to include works pertaining to railway infrastructure broadly. The contract involving track doubling, construction of bridges, platforms, maintenance facilities and associated infrastructure constitutes “original work pertaining to railway.” Court rejected narrow interpretation based on Indian Railways Act definition, noting exemption provisions should not be restricted by importing external conditions. Impugned orders demanding 18% GST were set aside as they contradicted existing advance rulings and would create legal inconsistency. Petition allowed confirming 12% tax rate applicability.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory Body's GST Assessment Upheld: Previous Tax Exemptions Don't Create Estoppel Against Current GST Provisions Under Section 107
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed writ petition challenging GST assessment of statutory body under Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board Act. Court held that despite previous VAT and service tax exemptions, GST Act provides no explicit exemption or zero-rated status for petitioner's products. Prior statutory exemptions cannot create estoppel against current GST provisions. Petitioner directed to pursue statutory remedy through appeal before Appellate Authority under Section 107 of CGST Act. Court preserved petitioner's right to pursue available statutory remedies against the assessment order while dismissing the writ petition.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =