Gold Dealer Faces Confiscation Under GST Act Section 130 for Rs.47.73 Crore Undocumented Sales Without Registration

Gold Dealer Faces Confiscation Under GST Act Section 130 for Rs.47.73 Crore Undocumented Sales Without RegistrationCase-LawsGSTHC dismissed petition challenging gold seizure under GST Act. Petitioner conducted unregistered sales of old gold worth Rs.47.73

Gold Dealer Faces Confiscation Under GST Act Section 130 for Rs.47.73 Crore Undocumented Sales Without Registration
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed petition challenging gold seizure under GST Act. Petitioner conducted unregistered sales of old gold worth Rs.47.73 Crores, with transactions lacking proper tax documentation. Time extension for investigation granted under Section 67 proviso nullified petitioner's limitation argument. Court found confiscation proceedings under Section 130 prima facie valid, directing petitioner to participate in proceedings. Petitioner retains right to seek provisional release of seized gold under Section 130(2) during confiscation proceedings. Investigation revealed unauthorized procurement and supply between entities without mandatory GST documentation. Dismissal upholds administrative authority's jurisdiction while preserving statutory remedies available to petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Show Cause Notices Hidden in Portal’s Additional Tab Violates Natural Justice; Section 73 Order Set Aside

GST Show Cause Notices Hidden in Portal’s Additional Tab Violates Natural Justice; Section 73 Order Set AsideCase-LawsGSTHC held that uploading GST show cause notices solely in the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ portal tab without clear navigation instru

GST Show Cause Notices Hidden in Portal's Additional Tab Violates Natural Justice; Section 73 Order Set Aside
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that uploading GST show cause notices solely in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' portal tab without clear navigation instructions constituted improper service. The taxpayer's unawareness of notices was justified as the portal's earlier scheme was confusing and vague regarding notice placement. The court found that absence of explicit directions on the main 'Notices and Orders' tab about checking additional tabs amounted to ineffective information dissemination. Given this procedural defect violated natural justice principles, the determination order under Section 73 was set aside. The petitioner was granted 30 days to respond to the notices, with the court emphasizing that proper service requires clear portal instructions for accessing statutory notices.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty Payment Under GST Section 129(1) Concludes Detention Proceedings Without Need for Formal MOV-09 Order

Penalty Payment Under GST Section 129(1) Concludes Detention Proceedings Without Need for Formal MOV-09 OrderCase-LawsGSTHC dismissed petition challenging non-issuance of GST MOV-09 order following detention of goods and payment of penalty. Per Section 12

Penalty Payment Under GST Section 129(1) Concludes Detention Proceedings Without Need for Formal MOV-09 Order
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed petition challenging non-issuance of GST MOV-09 order following detention of goods and payment of penalty. Per Section 129(5) of GST Act, payment of penalty amount under Section 129(1) automatically concludes proceedings initiated through detention notice under Section 129(3). Once petitioner paid calculated penalty following truck detention, proceedings stood concluded by operation of law. Court held adjudication on requirement of formal order under Section 129(3) post-penalty payment was unnecessary since statute deems matter concluded upon payment. Petition seeking mandatory order for issuance of Form GST MOV-09 rejected as legally untenable given statutory deeming provision.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

AAAR Reject Advance Ruling Application Under Section 98(2) Due to Ongoing DGGI Investigation into Same Matter

AAAR Reject Advance Ruling Application Under Section 98(2) Due to Ongoing DGGI Investigation into Same MatterCase-LawsGSTAAAR upheld rejection of advance ruling application due to pre-existing proceedings under CGST Act. The appellant filed for advance ru

AAAR Reject Advance Ruling Application Under Section 98(2) Due to Ongoing DGGI Investigation into Same Matter
Case-Laws
GST
AAAR upheld rejection of advance ruling application due to pre-existing proceedings under CGST Act. The appellant filed for advance ruling on 30.12.2022, after receiving summons from DGGI on 30.11.2022 and 20.12.2022. The term “any proceedings” in first proviso to Section 98(2) was interpreted broadly to include all scrutiny, inquiry, investigation, and assessment activities. AAAR distinguished this case from Radha Krishan Industries, noting that Section 83's restrictive interpretation of “proceedings” did not apply here. Since DGGI investigation preceded advance ruling application and concerned identical issues, the application was correctly rejected under Section 98(2) of CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017. Appeal dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Advance Ruling Application Rejected Due to Ongoing Investigation Under Section 98(2) of CGST Act

GST Advance Ruling Application Rejected Due to Ongoing Investigation Under Section 98(2) of CGST ActCase-LawsGSTAAAR upheld rejection of advance ruling application filed by appellant on 28.06.2022 regarding taxability of fees collected. Prior investigatio

GST Advance Ruling Application Rejected Due to Ongoing Investigation Under Section 98(2) of CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
AAAR upheld rejection of advance ruling application filed by appellant on 28.06.2022 regarding taxability of fees collected. Prior investigation by DGGI commenced with summons issued on 12.04.2022, followed by recorded statements and incident report concerning non-payment of GST on collected charges. First proviso to Sec 98(2) of CGST/TNGST Acts prohibits advance ruling pronouncement when investigation on same issue is pending. Since investigation preceded advance ruling application and addressed identical subject matter of tax liability on fees, application was correctly rejected as proceedings were already initiated under CGST Act. Appeal dismissed as investigation constituted valid “proceeding” barring advance ruling.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural Justice Challenge Dismissed: Court Grants 30-Day Window for Statutory Appeal Despite Hearing Opportunity Dispute

Natural Justice Challenge Dismissed: Court Grants 30-Day Window for Statutory Appeal Despite Hearing Opportunity DisputeCase-LawsGSTHC examined a challenge to an adjudication order allegedly issued without providing hearing opportunity. Despite claims of

Natural Justice Challenge Dismissed: Court Grants 30-Day Window for Statutory Appeal Despite Hearing Opportunity Dispute
Case-Laws
GST
HC examined a challenge to an adjudication order allegedly issued without providing hearing opportunity. Despite claims of natural justice violation, the court found extensive documentation requiring detailed factual analysis. Determining this was not an exceptional case warranting bypass of statutory appeal mechanisms, HC dismissed the appeal. However, court granted appellant 30 days from judgment receipt to file statutory appeal, directing appellate authority to accept it without limitation period restrictions. Court emphasized need for thorough factual adjudication through proper appellate channels rather than direct judicial intervention.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Show Cause Notice Invalid: Lack of Detailed Reasons and Hearing Denial Under Section 73 and 75(4)

GST Show Cause Notice Invalid: Lack of Detailed Reasons and Hearing Denial Under Section 73 and 75(4)Case-LawsGSTHC set aside GST order due to procedural defects in show cause notice (SCN) issuance. Court held that merely attaching tax determination detai

GST Show Cause Notice Invalid: Lack of Detailed Reasons and Hearing Denial Under Section 73 and 75(4)
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside GST order due to procedural defects in show cause notice (SCN) issuance. Court held that merely attaching tax determination details to SCN summary in Form GST DRC-01 does not constitute valid proceedings under Section 73. A proper SCN must specifically detail reasons for action and allow adequate opportunity for representation. Additionally, violation of Section 75(4) occurred as petitioner was denied requested hearing opportunity. Court found authentication requirements under Rule 26(3) were not met. While quashing impugned order dated 28.04.2024, HC granted liberty to authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73 for relevant financial year if warranted.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty Payment Under Protest in GST Cannot Be Deemed Voluntary, Preserving Right to Appeal Section 129(3)

Penalty Payment Under Protest in GST Cannot Be Deemed Voluntary, Preserving Right to Appeal Section 129(3)Case-LawsGSTHC quashed rectification order concerning GST penalty u/s 129(3). Initial penalty of Rs. 22,37,220/- was imposed and paid by petitioner t

Penalty Payment Under Protest in GST Cannot Be Deemed Voluntary, Preserving Right to Appeal Section 129(3)
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed rectification order concerning GST penalty u/s 129(3). Initial penalty of Rs. 22,37,220/- was imposed and paid by petitioner through DRC-03 under explicit protest. Authority subsequently attempted to rectify order making demand 'NIL' u/s 161. Court held that payment under protest cannot be deemed voluntary, and rectification cannot deprive appellant's statutory right to challenge original penalty order. Period between rectification order (08.10.2024) and present judgment excluded from limitation period for filing appeal against original order dated 06.10.2024. Rectification nullified, preserving petitioner's appellate rights against original penalty assessment.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Department Must Issue Detailed Show Cause Notice Under Section 73(1), Summary Notice Alone Invalid

GST Department Must Issue Detailed Show Cause Notice Under Section 73(1), Summary Notice Alone InvalidCase-LawsGSTHC held that issuance of only a Summary Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 violates natural justice principles and fails to comply wi

GST Department Must Issue Detailed Show Cause Notice Under Section 73(1), Summary Notice Alone Invalid
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that issuance of only a Summary Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 violates natural justice principles and fails to comply with Section 73(1) of AGST Act, 2017. The court emphasized that a Summary SCN cannot substitute a proper SCN as mandated under Section 73(1). The proper officer must issue a detailed SCN, statement under Section 73(3), and order under Section 73(9). Compliance with subsections (1) to (8) and (10) to (11) of Section 73 and Rule 142(1) are prerequisite conditions for a valid order under Section 73(9). Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 was quashed due to non-issuance of proper SCN.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 Cannot Replace Proper Notice Under Section 73(1) GST Act

Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 Cannot Replace Proper Notice Under Section 73(1) GST ActCase-LawsGSTHC held that summary show cause notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute proper SCN under Section 73(1) of AGST Act, 2017. The impugn

Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 Cannot Replace Proper Notice Under Section 73(1) GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that summary show cause notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute proper SCN under Section 73(1) of AGST Act, 2017. The impugned order was quashed as it violated principles of natural justice by failing to issue proper prior SCN as mandated. Court emphasized that compliance with Section 73(1-8, 10-11) and Rule 142(1) are prerequisites for valid orders under Section 73(9). The proper officer must issue SCN, statement under Section 73(3), and final order under Section 73(9). Mere issuance of SCN summary and tax determination attachment without proper notice violates procedural requirements. Order dated 21.08.2024 set aside as legally unsustainable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Contractor Wins 6% GST Reimbursement Claim as Contract Mandates Full Tax Recovery from Principal Party

Contractor Wins 6% GST Reimbursement Claim as Contract Mandates Full Tax Recovery from Principal PartyCase-LawsGSTHC determined that the contractor was liable to pay GST at 18% on taxable turnover from works contract, while respondent had only reimbursed

Contractor Wins 6% GST Reimbursement Claim as Contract Mandates Full Tax Recovery from Principal Party
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that the contractor was liable to pay GST at 18% on taxable turnover from works contract, while respondent had only reimbursed 12%. Based on contractual obligations requiring full GST reimbursement, which remained uncontested, respondent must pay the differential 6% GST amount. Court directed respondent to reimburse contractor for the difference between GST paid (18%) and amount already reimbursed (12%). Additionally, any interest charges levied by GST authorities for late payment must also be reimbursed by respondent. Writ petition disposed with directions for differential GST reimbursement.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Late Fee Valid But General Penalty Struck Down For Delayed GST Annual Returns Under Section 47 And 125

Late Fee Valid But General Penalty Struck Down For Delayed GST Annual Returns Under Section 47 And 125Case-LawsGSTHC partially allowed the petition challenging GST late fee and penalty impositions. Court upheld late fee under Section 47(2) of GST Act for

Late Fee Valid But General Penalty Struck Down For Delayed GST Annual Returns Under Section 47 And 125
Case-Laws
GST
HC partially allowed the petition challenging GST late fee and penalty impositions. Court upheld late fee under Section 47(2) of GST Act for delayed annual return filing, which mandates Rs.100 per day subject to maximum 0.25% of state turnover. However, HC struck down additional general penalty of Rs.50,000 each under Section 125 for CGST and SGST, ruling that when specific penalty provision exists as late fee under Section 47, imposing general penalty is improper. Court confirmed respondent authority's jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for non-filing but emphasized that penalty cannot be duplicated through both late fee and general penalty provisions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer’s GST Deregistration Valid Despite Supplier’s Later Registration Cancellation if Taxes Were Paid During Transaction

Taxpayer’s GST Deregistration Valid Despite Supplier’s Later Registration Cancellation if Taxes Were Paid During TransactionCase-LawsGSTHC determined that subsequent or retrospective cancellation of supplier registrations does not invalidate a taxpayer’s

Taxpayer's GST Deregistration Valid Despite Supplier's Later Registration Cancellation if Taxes Were Paid During Transaction
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that subsequent or retrospective cancellation of supplier registrations does not invalidate a taxpayer's request for voluntary GST deregistration, provided the supplies were obtained from validly registered vendors who had paid applicable taxes at the time of transaction. The petitioner was granted three weeks to submit documentation proving the legitimacy of input supplies and corresponding tax payments. The revenue authorities must evaluate the voluntary cancellation application based on verification of these submissions, focusing on the registration status of suppliers at the time of actual transactions rather than their current status. The matter was disposed with directions for administrative review of the deregistration request.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer Allowed to Transfer GST Demand Payment from DRC-03 to PMT-01 Through New DRC-03A Form Under Rule 142(2B)

Taxpayer Allowed to Transfer GST Demand Payment from DRC-03 to PMT-01 Through New DRC-03A Form Under Rule 142(2B)Case-LawsGSTHC addressed payment procedures for GST demands under rule 142. Petitioner paid demand through Form GST DRC-03 instead of required

Taxpayer Allowed to Transfer GST Demand Payment from DRC-03 to PMT-01 Through New DRC-03A Form Under Rule 142(2B)
Case-Laws
GST
HC addressed payment procedures for GST demands under rule 142. Petitioner paid demand through Form GST DRC-03 instead of required electronic liability register Form GST PMT-01. Following recent amendment via notification 12/24 introducing rule 142(2B), petitioner permitted to file Form GST DRC-03A electronically to transfer payment credit to electronic liability register. Court directed that if petitioner files refund application under Section 54, authorities must process and refund amount to electronic cash/credit ledger within two weeks. Petition disposed with directive to follow amended procedure for payment adjustment through proper forms.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delay in GST Appeal Filing Condoned After Taxpayer Shows Good Faith Through Partial Payment and Compliance

Delay in GST Appeal Filing Condoned After Taxpayer Shows Good Faith Through Partial Payment and ComplianceCase-LawsGSTHC condoned a 35-day delay in filing GST appeal, emphasizing that procedural delays should not override substantive justice. The petition

Delay in GST Appeal Filing Condoned After Taxpayer Shows Good Faith Through Partial Payment and Compliance
Case-Laws
GST
HC condoned a 35-day delay in filing GST appeal, emphasizing that procedural delays should not override substantive justice. The petitioner had demonstrated compliance by depositing 10% of tax liability and making additional payments toward disputed amount. Court found strict application of GST Act's limitation provisions unwarranted given circumstances. Matter remanded to second respondent for fresh consideration on merits, directing full examination of facts and circumstances. Decision underscores judicial preference for substantive resolution over procedural dismissal in tax matters where appellant shows good faith compliance efforts.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =