Vehicle and Goods Detained Under Section 129 Released After No Evidence of Tax Evasion Found in Invoice Verification

Vehicle and Goods Detained Under Section 129 Released After No Evidence of Tax Evasion Found in Invoice VerificationCase-LawsGSTHC found detention of vehicle and goods under Section 129 was improper. Physical verification confirmed correct quantity and we

Vehicle and Goods Detained Under Section 129 Released After No Evidence of Tax Evasion Found in Invoice Verification
Case-Laws
GST
HC found detention of vehicle and goods under Section 129 was improper. Physical verification confirmed correct quantity and weight of goods against three invoices, with no discrepancy in broad product classifications. Inspecting authority exceeded scope by scrutinizing detailed specifications (pipe size, shutter, TMT Bar dimensions) not required in invoices. While product classification issues could be addressed in separate adjudication proceedings, current detention was unwarranted as there was no evidence of tax evasion or fact suppression. Court ordered release of vehicle and goods within four days of order service. Matter disposed with directive to authorities to comply with release order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Government Directed to Process GST Refund Claim for Public Contract Work Following Similar Precedents in Infrastructure Projects

Government Directed to Process GST Refund Claim for Public Contract Work Following Similar Precedents in Infrastructure ProjectsCase-LawsGSTHC directed respondent authorities to immediately process petitioner’s GST refund claim following contract executio

Government Directed to Process GST Refund Claim for Public Contract Work Following Similar Precedents in Infrastructure Projects
Case-Laws
GST
HC directed respondent authorities to immediately process petitioner's GST refund claim following contract execution. The authorities must verify facts and assess petitioner's entitlement, considering precedents where government departments including PWD, PMGSY, NHAI, Railways, and CPWD had refunded GST in similar cases. The court's directive emphasizes administrative responsibility to address tax refund claims promptly and consistently with established practices across government departments. The decision underscores the principle of equitable treatment in tax administration, particularly regarding GST refunds in public contract execution cases.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 107: Three-Day Appeal Delay Condoned After Managing Director’s Travel Justification Deemed Reasonable Cause

Section 107: Three-Day Appeal Delay Condoned After Managing Director’s Travel Justification Deemed Reasonable CauseCase-LawsGSTHC allowed petition challenging appellate order under Section 107 of 2017 Act, finding that Appellate Authority failed to judici

Section 107: Three-Day Appeal Delay Condoned After Managing Director's Travel Justification Deemed Reasonable Cause
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed petition challenging appellate order under Section 107 of 2017 Act, finding that Appellate Authority failed to judiciously exercise discretionary power regarding delay condonation. Petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause for 3-day delay in filing appeal, citing Managing Director's travel. The delay fell within condonable period under Section 107(4). Authority erred by not examining whether delay was condonable and if sufficient cause existed. HC condoned delay, noting it was within prescribed statutory period and backed by reasonable justification. Matter remanded to Appellate Authority for consideration on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment Orders Without Document Identification Number Are Invalid and Cannot Be Enforced Under GST Rules

Assessment Orders Without Document Identification Number Are Invalid and Cannot Be Enforced Under GST RulesCase-LawsGSTHC ruled that assessment order lacking Document Identification Number (DIN) is invalid and non-est, following Supreme Court precedent in

Assessment Orders Without Document Identification Number Are Invalid and Cannot Be Enforced Under GST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that assessment order lacking Document Identification Number (DIN) is invalid and non-est, following Supreme Court precedent in Pradeep Goyal case. The court relied on CBIC circular No.128/47/2019-GST and previous Division Bench ruling which established that absence of DIN number compromises proceeding validity. Assessment order uploaded to portal without DIN was set aside, emphasizing mandatory compliance with electronic documentation requirements under GST framework. Petition allowed, reinforcing procedural requirement that all GST-related communications must contain valid DIN for legal enforceability.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Service Tax Penalties Under CGST Act Quashed As Services Were Exempt During Pre-GST Period Under Finance Act

Service Tax Penalties Under CGST Act Quashed As Services Were Exempt During Pre-GST Period Under Finance ActCase-LawsGSTHC allowed petition challenging service tax penalties under CGST Act. Penalties pertained to period before CGST implementation when ser

Service Tax Penalties Under CGST Act Quashed As Services Were Exempt During Pre-GST Period Under Finance Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed petition challenging service tax penalties under CGST Act. Penalties pertained to period before CGST implementation when services were exempt under Finance Act 1994. Court relied on precedent from Kanak Automobiles case where tax amount was Rs. 86 lakh compared to present case's Rs. 6,33,879. Distinguishing quantum while following ratio from SC judgment, court found penalties inapplicable since services were exempt during relevant period and CGST provisions could not be applied retrospectively.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Stock Discrepancies During GST Survey Cannot Trigger Section 130 Penalty Without Following Sections 73/74 Assessment Process

Stock Discrepancies During GST Survey Cannot Trigger Section 130 Penalty Without Following Sections 73/74 Assessment ProcessCase-LawsGSTHC quashed orders imposing tax and penalty under section 130 of GST Act arising from stock discrepancies discovered dur

Stock Discrepancies During GST Survey Cannot Trigger Section 130 Penalty Without Following Sections 73/74 Assessment Process
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed orders imposing tax and penalty under section 130 of GST Act arising from stock discrepancies discovered during business premises survey. Following established precedents, the Court held that mere stock discrepancies identified during survey warrant proceedings under sections 73/74 rather than section 130 of GST Act. The authority's direct invocation of section 130 was deemed legally unsustainable. The impugned orders dated 02.04.2024 by Additional Commissioner and 10.09.2018 read with 05.08.2020 by respondent authority were set aside, with the petition being allowed in favor of the registered dealer.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Stock Discrepancies Found During GST Survey Must Follow Assessment Under Section 73/74, Not Confiscation Under Section 130

Stock Discrepancies Found During GST Survey Must Follow Assessment Under Section 73/74, Not Confiscation Under Section 130Case-LawsGSTDuring a factory premises survey, discrepancies in raw material and semi-finished product inventory led to confiscation p

Stock Discrepancies Found During GST Survey Must Follow Assessment Under Section 73/74, Not Confiscation Under Section 130
Case-Laws
GST
During a factory premises survey, discrepancies in raw material and semi-finished product inventory led to confiscation proceedings under s.130 read with s.122 of the GST Act. The HC ruled that when stock discrepancies are discovered during a survey of a registered dealer, authorities must initiate proceedings under s.73/74 of the GST Act rather than s.130. Following established precedents, the HC determined the respondent's orders dated 16.04.2024 and 23.11.2019 were legally unsustainable. The HC emphasized that inventory irregularities discovered during routine surveys warrant assessment proceedings under s.73/74 rather than the more severe confiscation provisions under s.130. Petition allowed, impugned orders set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commission Agents Need GST Registration Only When Serving Taxable Principals and Making Taxable Supplies Under Section 24(vii)

Commission Agents Need GST Registration Only When Serving Taxable Principals and Making Taxable Supplies Under Section 24(vii)CircularsGSTCBIC clarified mandatory GST registration requirements for commission agents under Section 24(vii) of CGST Act. Commi

Commission Agents Need GST Registration Only When Serving Taxable Principals and Making Taxable Supplies Under Section 24(vii)
Circulars
GST
CBIC clarified mandatory GST registration requirements for commission agents under Section 24(vii) of CGST Act. Commission agents must register only when serving taxable principals and making taxable supplies. Agents representing agriculturists are exempt from mandatory registration since agriculturists supplying cultivation produce are not taxable persons under Section 23(1)(b). However, commission agents liable under reverse charge mechanism must mandatorily register per Section 24(iii). This corrigendum modifies Circular 57/31/2018-GST to clarify the dual conditions for mandatory registration and specific exemption for agents of agriculturists.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mentioning SAP Number Instead of Tax Invoice in E-way Bill Deemed Human Error, No Penalty Under Section 129

Mentioning SAP Number Instead of Tax Invoice in E-way Bill Deemed Human Error, No Penalty Under Section 129Case-LawsGSTHC held that mentioning SAP document number instead of tax invoice number in e-way bill during transport from Mathura to Mirzapur was a

Mentioning SAP Number Instead of Tax Invoice in E-way Bill Deemed Human Error, No Penalty Under Section 129
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that mentioning SAP document number instead of tax invoice number in e-way bill during transport from Mathura to Mirzapur was a genuine human error. Physical verification revealed no discrepancies in quality, quantity, or goods description between tax invoice and actual shipment. Authorities failed to establish any intention of tax evasion, which is essential for penalty imposition under Section 129 of GST Act. The technical mismatch alone cannot justify penalty proceedings when substantive compliance is evident. The court found impugned orders unsustainable, emphasizing that mere clerical errors, absent fraudulent intent, do not warrant punitive action. Petition allowed, setting aside tax and penalty orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Holographic Excise Stickers Classified as Goods Under GST Section 2(52), Not Services; Refund Approved for RCM Payments

Holographic Excise Stickers Classified as Goods Under GST Section 2(52), Not Services; Refund Approved for RCM PaymentsCase-LawsGSTHC determined that holographic stickers supplied by the Prohibition and Excise Department constitute “goods” under Section 2

Holographic Excise Stickers Classified as Goods Under GST Section 2(52), Not Services; Refund Approved for RCM Payments
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that holographic stickers supplied by the Prohibition and Excise Department constitute “goods” under Section 2(52) of GST laws, not services. The supply cannot be classified as a “composite supply” with excise licensing. The petitioner's previous RCM tax payments were made erroneously, as the stickers are not taxable supplies under Section 2(108). The court rejected the respondents' estoppel argument, affirming that tax principles are not bound by past practices. The second respondent must process refund claims under Section 54 of GST Acts and Rule 89 of GST rules within 3 months. The petition was allowed, granting refund of GST paid under reverse charge mechanism for holographic sticker procurement.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Assessment Order Quashed: Officer Failed to Follow Section 74 Guidelines and Determine Liability Under GST Act

Tax Assessment Order Quashed: Officer Failed to Follow Section 74 Guidelines and Determine Liability Under GST ActCase-LawsGSTHC quashed assessment order due to procedural non-compliance under Section 74 of TN GST Act, 2017. AO failed to determine tax lia

Tax Assessment Order Quashed: Officer Failed to Follow Section 74 Guidelines and Determine Liability Under GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed assessment order due to procedural non-compliance under Section 74 of TN GST Act, 2017. AO failed to determine tax liability and disregarded Commissioner's circular guidelines, rendering order arbitrary. Court found fundamental procedural lapses in assessment methodology, violating statutory requirements for tax determination. Matter remanded to assessing authority for de novo consideration in accordance with prescribed procedures and guidelines. AO directed to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass fresh order following statutory framework.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Unsigned GST Assessment Order Invalid: Signature Requirement Mandatory Under CGST Act Sections 160 & 169

Unsigned GST Assessment Order Invalid: Signature Requirement Mandatory Under CGST Act Sections 160 & 169Case-LawsGSTHC set aside GST assessment order due to absence of assessing officer’s signature, holding it as a fatal procedural defect. The court d

Unsigned GST Assessment Order Invalid: Signature Requirement Mandatory Under CGST Act Sections 160 & 169
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside GST assessment order due to absence of assessing officer's signature, holding it as a fatal procedural defect. The court determined that signature requirement cannot be dispensed with and such defect cannot be rectified under Sections 160 & 169 of CGST Act, 2017. While invalidating the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, HC granted liberty to tax authority to conduct fresh assessment after proper notice and ensuring signed order. The ruling emphasizes mandatory procedural compliance in tax assessment proceedings, specifically the necessity of authorized signature on assessment orders.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Officials Cannot Penalize Missing State E-way Bill During Feb-Mar 2018 Under Section 129(3) UPGST Act

Tax Officials Cannot Penalize Missing State E-way Bill During Feb-Mar 2018 Under Section 129(3) UPGST ActCase-LawsGSTHC quashed proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act 2017 regarding goods intercepted without state E-way bill. While tax in

Tax Officials Cannot Penalize Missing State E-way Bill During Feb-Mar 2018 Under Section 129(3) UPGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act 2017 regarding goods intercepted without state E-way bill. While tax invoice, Central E-way bill and builty accompanied the goods, state E-way bill was absent. Following precedents in similar cases, HC held that during 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, E-way bill requirement under UPGST Act was not enforceable. Therefore, seizure proceedings against petitioner were without jurisdiction. The impugned orders were unsustainable in law as the requirement for state E-way bill documentation had not come into force during the relevant period. Petition allowed with proceedings quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Absence of E-Tax Invoice Due to GST Portal Glitch Cannot Justify Detention or Penalties When Physical Documents Exist

Absence of E-Tax Invoice Due to GST Portal Glitch Cannot Justify Detention or Penalties When Physical Documents ExistCase-LawsGSTHC determined that detention of goods and penalties imposed for missing e-tax invoice were unjustified. While physical tax inv

Absence of E-Tax Invoice Due to GST Portal Glitch Cannot Justify Detention or Penalties When Physical Documents Exist
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that detention of goods and penalties imposed for missing e-tax invoice were unjustified. While physical tax invoice, e-way bill, and bilty accompanied the goods with accurate descriptions and quantities, the e-tax invoice was absent due to technical issues with GST portal. The authorities failed to establish any intent to evade tax payments. The petitioner's explanation regarding technical glitch remained undisputed. Following precedents where deficiencies noted in show cause notices were rectified before detention orders, the court held that penalties were unwarranted when no tax evasion was proven. The impugned order was set aside and the petition was allowed, establishing that technical non-compliance without fraudulent intent does not merit punitive action.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancellation Order Quashed: Lack of Mandatory Reasoning Violates Administrative Law and Constitutional Rights

GST Registration Cancellation Order Quashed: Lack of Mandatory Reasoning Violates Administrative Law and Constitutional RightsCase-LawsGSTHC quashed the GST registration cancellation order dated 06.04.2021 issued by Asst Commissioner. The order lacked man

GST Registration Cancellation Order Quashed: Lack of Mandatory Reasoning Violates Administrative Law and Constitutional Rights
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed the GST registration cancellation order dated 06.04.2021 issued by Asst Commissioner. The order lacked mandatory reasoning for cancellation, violating fundamental principles of administrative law and Art 14 of Constitution. Though petitioner's appeal was dismissed for limitation under s.107(4) UPGST Act, doctrine of merger was found inapplicable. Court emphasized that reasons constitute the essence of judicial and administrative orders, without which such orders cannot be legally sustained. The registration cancellation, being a severe action, required clear justification. The impugned order was set aside for lack of application of mind and absence of reasoning.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Electronic Service of Notices Under Central Excise Act Valid Through CGST Act Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c)

Electronic Service of Notices Under Central Excise Act Valid Through CGST Act Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c)Case-LawsGSTHC held that electronic service of notices under Central Excise Act 1944 is permissible through application of CGST Act provisions. R

Electronic Service of Notices Under Central Excise Act Valid Through CGST Act Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that electronic service of notices under Central Excise Act 1944 is permissible through application of CGST Act provisions. Reading Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c) of CGST Act together enables electronic service modes for existing laws including 1944 Act, despite Section 37C being silent on email service. Court rejected petitioner's argument against electronic notice validity and distinguished prior CESTAT precedent as inapplicable. Directed petitioner to pursue statutory appeal remedy with delay condonation application, excluding court proceedings duration from limitation period. Time spent before court would not count towards appeal limitation. Petition disposed of with directions to appellate authority to consider appeal per law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Officer’s CGST Act Arrest Invalidated After Driver Signs Memo Instead of Family Member, Violating D.K. Basu Guidelines

Officer’s CGST Act Arrest Invalidated After Driver Signs Memo Instead of Family Member, Violating D.K. Basu GuidelinesCase-LawsGSTHC invalidated an arrest under CGST Act 2017 due to procedural violations. While proper documentation including arrest memo,

Officer's CGST Act Arrest Invalidated After Driver Signs Memo Instead of Family Member, Violating D.K. Basu Guidelines
Case-Laws
GST
HC invalidated an arrest under CGST Act 2017 due to procedural violations. While proper documentation including arrest memo, medical records and grounds for arrest were maintained, the arrest memo was improperly attested by a driver rather than a family member or local resident as required by official instructions and D.K. Basu guidelines. The arresting officer provided no explanation for this non-compliance. The court determined this was not a mere irregularity but a substantive violation that vitiated the entire arrest. Given the illegal nature of the arrest, the court granted bail to the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancelled Under Section 29(2)(e) After Business Failed to Prove Actual Premises Occupancy

GST Registration Cancelled Under Section 29(2)(e) After Business Failed to Prove Actual Premises OccupancyCase-LawsGSTHC upheld cancellation of petitioner’s registration under Section 29(2)(e) due to fraudulent misrepresentation of business premises. Desp

GST Registration Cancelled Under Section 29(2)(e) After Business Failed to Prove Actual Premises Occupancy
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld cancellation of petitioner's registration under Section 29(2)(e) due to fraudulent misrepresentation of business premises. Despite presenting electricity bills and leave/license agreement, petitioner failed to substantiate actual occupancy through proof of license fee payments or utility charges. Petitioner's inaction in responding to show cause notice, non-appearance before appellate authority, and failure to challenge Bureau of Investigation's spot visit findings proved detrimental. Court found proper officer's inference plausible based on available evidence. The registration cancellation order was deemed neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence, leading to dismissal of writ petition challenging the cancellation order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Order Under Section 16(4) CGST Act Set Aside Due To Procedural Non-Compliance And Lack Of Fair Hearing

Input Tax Credit Order Under Section 16(4) CGST Act Set Aside Due To Procedural Non-Compliance And Lack Of Fair HearingCase-LawsGSTHC set aside respondent’s order concerning input tax credit under Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017. The matter was remanded b

Input Tax Credit Order Under Section 16(4) CGST Act Set Aside Due To Procedural Non-Compliance And Lack Of Fair Hearing
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside respondent's order concerning input tax credit under Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017. The matter was remanded back to respondent No.7 for fresh consideration in accordance with amended Section 16 provisions. The authority must provide petitioner opportunity for hearing and issue new determination within two months from certified order copy production. Court's intervention focused on procedural compliance and fair hearing requirements under GST framework, particularly regarding time extension for passing orders under Section 73 and proper adjudication of input tax credit claims.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Appeal Delay of 142 Days Condoned After Late Physical Service of Notice Despite Portal Upload

GST Appeal Delay of 142 Days Condoned After Late Physical Service of Notice Despite Portal UploadCase-LawsGSTHC condoned 142-day delay in filing GST appeal where appellant demonstrated reasonable cause due to belated service of demand notice. While notice

GST Appeal Delay of 142 Days Condoned After Late Physical Service of Notice Despite Portal Upload
Case-Laws
GST
HC condoned 142-day delay in filing GST appeal where appellant demonstrated reasonable cause due to belated service of demand notice. While notice was uploaded on GST portal, physical copy was only served on 16.04.2024. Court determined delayed physical service constituted sufficient grounds for condonation, setting aside appellate authority's original order rejecting appeal. Delay condoned under principles of reasonable cause and procedural fairness, acknowledging distinction between portal upload and actual service of notice. Original appellate order vacated, allowing appellant to proceed with substantive appeal on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayers Can Claim GST Input Tax Credit for 2017-21 if GSTR-3B Filed by November 2021 Under Section 16(5)

Taxpayers Can Claim GST Input Tax Credit for 2017-21 if GSTR-3B Filed by November 2021 Under Section 16(5)Case-LawsGSTHC allowed petition regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims under GST regime. Following precedent in Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries case,

Taxpayers Can Claim GST Input Tax Credit for 2017-21 if GSTR-3B Filed by November 2021 Under Section 16(5)
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed petition regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims under GST regime. Following precedent in Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries case, court held that retrospective amendment to Section 16 of CGST Act by insertion of sub-section (5) enables taxpayers to claim ITC for FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 if GSTR-3B returns were filed by November 30, 2021. Department's order dated February 26, 2021 denying ITC based on Section 16(4) limitation was quashed. Court restrained authorities from initiating proceedings against petitioner on limitation grounds, recognizing extended timeline under Section 16(5). Decision affirms legislative intent to provide relief through retrospective amendment effective from July 1, 2017.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Technical Error in Auto-Populated Shipping Address on E-Way Bill Cannot Justify GST Seizure or Penalty

Technical Error in Auto-Populated Shipping Address on E-Way Bill Cannot Justify GST Seizure or PenaltyCase-LawsGSTHC held that a technical error in shipping address on an auto-populated e-way bill cannot justify seizure or penalty under GST law. The e-way

Technical Error in Auto-Populated Shipping Address on E-Way Bill Cannot Justify GST Seizure or Penalty
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that a technical error in shipping address on an auto-populated e-way bill cannot justify seizure or penalty under GST law. The e-way bill, valid from 14.12.2022 to 16.12.2022, was not cancelled within its validity period, indicating the transaction's legitimacy. The primary purpose of e-way bills is to track goods movement and ensure proper tax assessment. Since the petitioner's e-way bill remained active throughout its validity period, the authenticity of the transaction cannot be questioned. The court emphasized that mere technical discrepancies in shipping details do not warrant punitive action when the fundamental purpose of goods movement tracking is fulfilled. Petition allowed, proceedings against petitioner invalidated.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appellate Authority Under GST Can Condone Delay Beyond One Month Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act 1963

Appellate Authority Under GST Can Condone Delay Beyond One Month Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act 1963Case-LawsGSTHC held that Appellate Authority under West Bengal GST Act 2017 has power to condone delay beyond one month of prescribed appeal period. Whi

Appellate Authority Under GST Can Condone Delay Beyond One Month Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act 1963
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that Appellate Authority under West Bengal GST Act 2017 has power to condone delay beyond one month of prescribed appeal period. While appeal was dismissed for being time-barred, petitioner could invoke Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 for delay condonation. Following precedent in S.K. Chakraborty matter, Court found Appellate Authority should have considered explanation provided in delay condonation application. Given sufficient cause shown by petitioner and to avoid futile remand proceedings, HC accepted the delay explanation and disposed of petition, allowing appeal to proceed on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment Order on Security Wages Treatment Set Aside Due to Lack of Specific Notice and Natural Justice Violation

Assessment Order on Security Wages Treatment Set Aside Due to Lack of Specific Notice and Natural Justice ViolationCase-LawsGSTHC partially set aside assessment order concerning disputed “Security Wages” treatment, finding procedural deficiency as this is

Assessment Order on Security Wages Treatment Set Aside Due to Lack of Specific Notice and Natural Justice Violation
Case-Laws
GST
HC partially set aside assessment order concerning disputed “Security Wages” treatment, finding procedural deficiency as this issue was not specifically mentioned in show cause notice which only referenced “Administration Expenses.” Court determined petitioner was denied natural justice by not receiving opportunity for personal hearing on security wages matter. Order remanded to respondent for fresh consideration specifically regarding security wages component. While granting liberty to file appeal on remaining assessment issues, HC cautioned against piecemeal appeals. Original assessment dated 30.08.2024 remains valid on all other aspects pending potential comprehensive appeal by petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Government Entity Must Pay Differential GST Amount After Rate Increase from 12% to 18% Following Apex Structure Precedent

Government Entity Must Pay Differential GST Amount After Rate Increase from 12% to 18% Following Apex Structure PrecedentCase-LawsGSTThe HC addressed the dispute regarding differential GST liability payment. Following precedent established in M/s Apex Str

Government Entity Must Pay Differential GST Amount After Rate Increase from 12% to 18% Following Apex Structure Precedent
Case-Laws
GST
The HC addressed the dispute regarding differential GST liability payment. Following precedent established in M/s Apex Structure case, the court affirmed that GST rate enhancement from 12% to 18% was lawfully applicable and payable by the government entity (respondent). The ruling upheld the state GST department's position on increased tax rate applicability. The decision reinforces the binding nature of revised GST rates on government entities and their obligation to remit the differential amount. The court's determination aligns with established GST jurisprudence regarding rate revisions and statutory compliance requirements for public sector undertakings. Petition disposed of with clear directive on GST differential payment obligation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =