Goods and Services Tax

HC allows appeal filing delay due to rectification application; 15% pre-deposit required under ITC mismatch case rules
Case-Laws
GST
The HC condoned a 67-day delay in filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order arising from mismatched Input Tax Credit claims and excess ITC. The petitioner's pursuit of a rectification application was deemed a sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the 2nd respondent/Appellate Authority was directed to admit the appeal without raising l

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order set aside for lack of reasoned decision under Sections 73(9) and 75(6) of CGST Act, remanded for fresh hearing
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order due to non-application of mind and violation of natural justice, finding that the adjudicating authority merely replicated the Service Tax notice without independently considering the Petitioner's detailed submissions or relevant precedents. The order failed to address the applicability of the Board Circular or explain the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment order quashed for AY 2017-18 due to non-compliance with Section 140 of TNGST Act, fresh adjudication ordered
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the impugned assessment order for AY 2017-18 concerning the petitioner's Input Tax Credit claimed without adhering to Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The matter was remitted to the first respondent for fresh adjudication de novo on merits within six months, conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount as a p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Impugned order quashed for non-application of mind; fresh hearing ordered under natural justice principles
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the impugned order due to non-application of mind and violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax and recovered over 25% during proceedings. The matter was remanded to the respondents to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a hearing within three months. T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Supply of Stationery Without Payment Not a Taxable Supply Under Section 7 CGST Act, 2017
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that supply of stationery items without consideration does not constitute a supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017, as it is not made for consideration and thus falls outside the scope of business under Section 2(17). Supply of stationery or repair services for consideration qualifies as a taxable supply. Recovery of fines or penalties for loss or breach does not con

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Dismissed on ITC Ineligibility; Natural Justice Followed, Alternative Remedies Available
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the impugned order regarding ineligible ITC availed and utilized. The court found that the proper officer had complied with principles of natural justice by granting a hearing and considering the petitioner's contentions. The petitioner admitted wrongful availment of ITC for April to December 2020, which was subsequently reve

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Garlic peeled, chopped, and packed classified under HSN 07032000; no GST liability as per Section 97(2)(a) CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR declined to rule on whether peeling, chopping, and packing garlic constitutes manufacturing, as this issue is not within its jurisdiction under section 97(2)(a) CGST Act, 2017. However, it held that peeled, chopped, and packed garlic falls under tariff heading 07032000, covering fresh or chilled alliaceous vegetables, including garlic in various prepa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

No GST Exemption for Student Transportation and Catering Services Under Notification 12/2017-CT Rate
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the applicant is ineligible for exemption under serial no. 66(b)(i) & (ii) of notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) for transportation and catering services provided directly to students, as the consideration was received from students and not from the educational institution. Consequently, the services are not deemed to be provided to the school, failing the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Job work on metallic film rolls not classified as textiles; GST rate fixed at 12% under serial No. 26(id)
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that job work involving cutting of metallic film rolls used for zari/metallic yarn does not qualify as textile or textile products under chapters 50 to 63 of the CTA '75, as the applicant failed to prove the classification. Consequently, the benefit of concessional GST at 5% under serial No. 26(i)(b) was denied. The job work falls under serial No. 26(id),

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty under Section 27(3) TNVAT Act for ITC reversal must follow latest Circulars and proper factors
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the penalty imposed under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, for reversal of ITC due to mismatched returns was improperly determined without regard to relevant factors and applicable Circulars. The Tribunal erred by relying on an outdated Circular, failing to consider the subsequent Circular No.5/2021 issued pursuant to this Court's directive mandating

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC limits GST cancellation to Show Cause Notice date, overturns retrospective cancellation from 2017 under Section 29
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the impugned final order of GST cancellation dated 6 September 2024, allowing the petition. The court held that since the taxpayer was found non-existent at the principal place of business during physical verification, retrospective cancellation from 1 July 2017 was inappropriate. Relying on precedent, the HC modified the cancellation date to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Demand orders set aside for violating natural justice; fresh reply allowed under GST rules 16(4)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned demand orders and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority due to violation of natural justice principles. The Court held that the SCN, issued prior to changes in the GST portal making the 'Additional Notices Tab' visible, was not properly communicated to the Petitioner, depriving them of a fair opportunity to respond. Consequently, no rep

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order quashed for defective service of Show Cause Notice under Section 169 CGST Act; natural justice principles upheld
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed the impugned order due to defective service of the Show Cause Notice (SCN), which was only uploaded on the GST Portal without physical service, depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to reply. The Court held that mere upload on the portal does not constitute effective service if no response is received, and the issuing officer must explo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Regasification of Third-Party LNG as Job Work Under Section 2(68) CGST Act, Taxable at 12%
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the service of regasification of LNG owned by a third party, provided through an intermediary under contractual arrangements, constitutes job work within the meaning of section 2(68) of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant acts as a job worker for the owner of the goods, without holding ownership. The service is classifiable under serial no. 26(id) of notification No.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Interest and costs from arbitration awards before GST are not taxable under Schedule II, clause 5(e)
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR held that the amounts received as interest and costs awarded under arbitration do not constitute a supply liable to GST, as the transactions relate to the pre-GST period and fall outside the scope of Schedule II, clause 5(e). The work contract lacked any penalty, compensation, or interest recovery provisions for delayed payments. Consequently, the applicant is not o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC defers ruling on Section 168A GST Act validity, awaiting Supreme Court decision on identical issues
Case-Laws
GST
The HC declined to adjudicate the constitutional validity of Section 7 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment) Act, 2020, introducing Section 168A in the GST Act, and the related Notifications Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023, as identical issues are pending before the SC. Exercising judicial discipline, the HC refrained from expressing any opinion on the vires of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 74 CGST Act Misapplied Without Fraud; Interim Relief Granted for Prepaid GST Liability Dispute
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the authorities improperly invoked Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the petitioner had already discharged the GST liability with interest before the show-cause notice issuance. The court emphasized that Section 74 applies only in cases involving fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, which were not established here. Given the vacancy in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional Attachment Order Under Section 83(2) CGST Act Ceases After One Year, Bank Account Released
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the provisional attachment order issued under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, ceased to have effect after one year from the date of the order under Section 83(1). Since more than one year had elapsed since the impugned order dated April 5, 2024, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account was no longer valid. Consequently, the HC quashed and set

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 161 CGST Order Set Aside for Lack of Hearing and Non-Speaking Reasons, Remanded for Fresh Consideration
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned rectification order under Section 161 of the CGST/DGST Act, finding it to be cryptic, non-speaking, and issued without affording the petitioner a hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Although the Show Cause Notice and demand order were reasoned and a detailed reply was filed, the rectification order merely dismis

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Under Article 226 Allowed Despite Alternative Remedy Due to Natural Justice Violation and Procedural Errors
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable due to violation of natural justice and non-application of mind in the impugned assessment order. The court found that the order ignored the petitioner's detailed reply and merely reiterated the show cause notice without pro

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation set aside; petitioner allowed to file returns and pay taxes with penalty under law
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the cancellation of GST registration and declined to entertain the revocation application on the merits. The petitioner, having expressed willingness to file pending returns and pay applicable taxes with interest and penalty for specified financial years, was granted indulgence. The Court remitted the matter to the respondent authority for fresh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Kerala SGST Updates Delegation for Waiver Applications Under Section 128A from March 2025 Onward
Circulars
GST – States
The Kerala SGST Commissioner amended the delegation of functions under the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically concerning the waiver scheme under newly inserted Section 128A effective 01.11.2024. The proper officer for processing waiver applications relating to notices under Section 73 remains the officer authorized under that section, while app

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Kerala GST Department implements Section 74A procedural changes for streamlined tax adjudication across departmental verticals
Circulars
GST – States
The Kerala State GST Department issued Circular No. 14/2025 implementing procedural changes for adjudication under Section 74A of the KSGST Act, 2017. Section 74A, inserted through the Kerala Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024, standardizes timeframes for tax determination and penalty relief regardless of fraud or suppression circumstance

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST demand order quashed for exceeding show-cause notice amount under Section 75(7)
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed tax demand order dated April 27, 2024 for violating Section 75(7) of GST Act. Show-cause notice specified tax, interest and penalty amount of Rs. 4,80,527.36, but final demand raised Rs. 24,40,363.10, exceeding notice amount. Court held Section 75(7) mandates that tax, interest and penalty demanded in order cannot exceed amount specified in notice, and no demand shall be confirme

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's installment request must be considered within three weeks despite admitted liability of Rs.35,59,067
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of the writ petition concerning attachment and short-payment of Rs.35,59,067. The petitioner admitted liability for the sum and requested monthly installments, but the second respondent failed to consider this representation dated 26.05.2025. The court declined to intervene against garnishee proceedings dated 15.04.2025 given the admitted liabil

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =