Goods and Services Tax

Industrial units in Sikkim seek clarity on eligibility for budgetary support scheme despite location compliance.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge. The court held that to avail the Budgetary Support Scheme (BSS), the concerned unit must be located in the specified areas mentioned in the 2007 and 2017 notifications, producing specified goods cleared from the same units. The intent of the BSS pivoted around the geograp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax authorities can audit businesses anytime to ensure GST compliance.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondents u/s 65 of the CGST Act, 2017 for conducting audit. The Court held that the Commissioner can conduct the audit at prescribed frequency and manner without any embargo or time period restriction. The audit is akin to a preliminary inquiry, and the Department should not be prevented from conducting such inquiry in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax notice upheld; State Tax officers empowered under IGST Act; Revenue authorities determine ownership of consignment.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the tax authority's jurisdiction and power to issue the notice demanding tax and penalty. The court affirmed that u/s 4 of the IGST Act, officers of the State Tax are cross-authorized as proper officers for the purposes of the IGST Act, subject to any exceptions or conditions specified by the Governmen

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Non-consideration of challenge to show-cause notice & lack of reasoning violate natural justice.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court allowed the petition by way of remand due to violation of principles of natural justice by the 4th Respondent. While the Petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice was unclear, the 4th Respondent failed to consider the Petitioner's contention that a petition was filed challenging the show-cause notice. The impugned order lacked reasons for finding the reply unsa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory for Biometric-Based Aadhaar Authentication and Document Verification for GST Registration Applicants of Chhattisgarh, Goa and Mizoram
GST
Dated:- 16-12-2024

Dear Taxpayers,
This is to inform taxpayers about recent developments concerning the application process for GST registration. It is advised to keep the following key points in mind during the registration process.
1. Rule 8 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has been amended to provide that an applicant can be identified on the common portal, based on data analysis and risk parameters for Biometric-based Aadhaar Authentication and taking a photograph of the applicant along with the verification of the original copy of the documents uploaded with the application.
2. The a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

int 3(a), she/he can proceed with the application as per the existing process.
5. However, if the applicant receives the link as mentioned in point 3(b), she/he will be required to book the appointment to visit the designated GSK, using the link provided in the e-mail.
6. The feature of booking an appointment to visit a designated GSK is now available for the applicants of Chhattisgarh, Goa and Mizoram.
7. After booking the appointment, the applicant gets the confirmation of appointment through e-mail (the appointment confirmation e-mail), she/he will be able to visit the designated GSK as per the chosen schedule.
8. At the time of the visit of GSK, the applicant is required to carry the following details/documents
(a) a copy (hard/so

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Plaintiffs' request for securing amount rejected; failed to prove defendants' intent to dispose assets.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking an order to require the defendants to secure an amount of Rs. 1,14,88,833/- until the disposal of the suit. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendants to demonstrate that they were attempting to dispose of or remove movable or immovable propertie

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Authority Initiates Adjudication on Input Tax Credit; Court Upholds Notice Validity.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued for wrongful availment of input tax credit by the petitioners. The Court held that the show cause notice u/s 74 of the CGST/WBGST Acts is merely initiation of adjudication and does not warrant judicial interference unless issued wholly without jurisdiction or ex-facie perverse. Relying on Supreme Court'

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition allowed against non-speaking order demanding GST & premium; fresh demand permitted with detailed reasoning by 05.12.2023.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court allowed the petition challenging the demand raised by the respondent Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority from the petitioner towards GST and premium. The demand was set aside as it was a non-speaking order, violating the principles of natural justice and being contrary to notifications, advance ruling, and the Court's

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Improperly issued tax notice without hearing opportunity quashed for violating statutory provisions.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing the determination of tax cannot be considered a valid initiation of proceedings u/s 73 without issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. The Summary is in addition to, but not a substitute for, a proper Show Cause Notice. The impugned order was passed without issuing a proper Sh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Notice Invalidated for Failing Legal Standards; Court Upholds Right to Hearing and Proper Authentication Process.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the Summary of Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing tax determination cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice as mandated u/s 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts. The impugned order was quashed as it violated principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of hearing u/s 75(4) before passing the order. The

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Intra-state Tax Liability: Onus on JV to Prove Work Ratio.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that since the nature of supply was intra-state in respective states, the tax liability shall be discharged individually in each state equivalent to the work executed there. As the petitioner joint venture (JV) failed to produce the inter se agreement or evidence regarding the proportion of work executed by each partner in the respective states, the court could not determine the tax liability. T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Flavoured Milk Classified Under Milk Products for GST; Exempt from Penalties, Petition Allowed.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that flavoured milk is to be classified under GST Tariff Heading 0402 and not 2202. The entry 0402 covers milk and milk products, including milk containing added sugar or sweetening matter. Although flavoured milk contains 0.5% Badam flavour, it cannot be excluded from Heading 0402 merely due to the addition of flavour. The principle of noscitur a sociis indi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Arbitrary tax demand quashed; Taxpayer relief on limitations upheld.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court allowed the writ petition by quashing the appellate order dated June 28, 2024, due to procedural irregularities and arbitrary actions in the demand of tax, interest, and penalties u/ss 16(2)(c) and 73 of the GST Act. The Court held that provisions on limitation should be interpreted liberally where genuine hardships are demonstrated, considering judicial precedents supporting such relief. T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's GST registration restored after court intervention; CGST/WBGST to open portal for tax payment.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders cancelling the petitioner's registration. The court directed the respondent CGST/WBGST authority to restore the petitioner's registration, open the portal for 45 days to enable the petitioner to make payment of revenue due, including penalty, within 15 working days as indicated by the r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Upholds GST Registration Cancellation Due to Late Appeal and Non-Compliance with Filing Requirements.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of appeal against cancellation of GST registration for non-compliance with GST REG 2017. The petitioner failed to furnish returns u/s 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. The show cause notice was issued on 15.01.2023, and the GST registration was cancelled vide order dated 15.01.2023. However, the petitioner filed

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Orders Decision on Tax Ruling for Land and Building Sale in 90 Days Despite Pre-Show Cause Notice.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale of land and buildings, based on the subsequent issuance of a pre-show cause notice dated 22 October 2024 by respondent No. 2 u/s 73(5) read with Rule 142(1-A) of the State Goods and Services Tax Act. The

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax evasion case: 100% penalty set aside, deposit Rs 25 lakh ordered for ITC discrepancies.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court set aside the impugned assessment orders imposing a 100% penalty u/s 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for excess claims of Input Tax Credit and short payment of tax due to discrepancies in sale invoices and turnover reported. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 11,36,408/- already paid

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tribunal allows refund of pre-GST taxes paid despite unfulfilled export obligation.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee to claim refund of Rs. 3,28,75,733/- towards Central Value Added Tax credit, Customs Duty, and Special Additional Duty paid after the appointed day under the CGST Act. The Tribunal rightly relied on Section 142(3) of the CGST Act to entertain the refund claim for amounts paid under the existing law pri

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Multinational firm denied High Court intervention, directed to exhaust statutory appeals against tax authority's order.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court declined to entertain the petition challenging the Order-in-Original issued by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Pune. The Court held that no case was made out to deviate from the usual practice of requiring the party to exhaust the alternate statutory appeals available. Regarding the requirement of pre-deposit, the Cou

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax credit blocked by authorities, High Court intervenes. Petitioner to deposit 25% tax, submit objections within 4 weeks.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2023 which had blocked the input tax credit availed by the Petitioner based on invoices raised by their Supplier u/s 17(5). The Petitioner agreed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. The impugned order shall be treated as a show cause notice, and the Petitioner shall submit object

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Impugned tax order set aside for lack of due process; ITC case involving alleged bogus invoices reopened for petitioner's objections.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 for violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of show cause notices and assessment order. The case involved availment of input tax credit on alleged supplies from bill traders based on bogus invoices without actual goods involvement. Considering the petitioner h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Flawed tax demand notice quashed; authorities can restart process afresh.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the Summary of Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing tax determination cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice as mandated u/s 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. The impugned order was passed without issuing a proper Show Cause Notice, violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) which requires granting an opportunity of hearing when request

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Failure to amend invoice & e-way bill leads to 200% GST penalty for discrepancies.
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioner failed to amend the invoice and e-way bill to reflect the actual goods loaded on the vehicle, resulting in discrepancies in GST documentation. The High Court upheld the levy of penalty u/s 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017, amounting to 200% of the tax payable, due to the irregularity committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was unable to substantiate their case with records be

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition Dismissed: Failure to Exhaust Remedies and Unjustified Delay in Filing Under Article 226.
Case-Laws
GST
The petition was dismissed by the High Court as no case was made out to depart from the usual rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies. The key reasons were: 1) An alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order, although the petitioner contended violation of principles of natural justice. 2) The petition was filed almost a year after the impugned orde

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anticipatory Bail Upheld in Rs. 7 Crore Misappropriation Case Despite Grave Allegations.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the petitions seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were alleged to have misappropriated over Rs. 7 crores by misusing credentials and withdrawing funds from accounts, instead of paying statutory dues. Despite the grave allegations of economic offenses u/ss 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the court held that the of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =