Goods and Services Tax

High Court Quashes Consolidated GST Show Cause Notice for Multiple Years, Allows Separate Notices.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court set aside the show cause notice and summary issued by the respondent u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for multiple financial years spanning January 2018 to August 2022. Relying on the coordinate bench judgment in M/S. VEREMAX TECHNOLOGIE SERVICES LIMITED, the Court held that the respondent erred in issuing a consolidated show cause notice

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Extended GSTR-3B filing due date till 11th Dec for businesses in Murshidabad, West Bengal.
Notifications
GST
The Commissioner, on the recommendations of the Council, has extended the due date for filing FORM GSTR-3B for the month of October 2024 till 11th December 2024 for registered persons whose principal place of business is in Murshidabad district of West Bengal. This extension is granted under sub-section (6) of section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for those r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST shocker: Court strikes down orders for lack of fair hearing, remands case.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court quashed the orders dated 01.02.2022 and 24.04.2024 passed against the petitioner u/s 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner had availed input tax credit by mistake but did not utilize it. The original order was passed without providing an opportunity for personal hearing, violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The matter was remanded to the adjudi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bogus Invoicing Scam: Bail Granted in Fake Firms Case.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court granted bail to the applicant u/ss 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The case involved the creation of fake firms and issuance of bogus bills and invoices without any supply of goods and services. Considering the facts, nature of the offence, punishment, available material, the applicant's lack of criminal history, and the release of a co-ac

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund claim for IGST dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to issue a refund of Integrated Goods & Services Tax (IGST) along with interest due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that since the petitioner's application for refund was made at the ports of export and the claim was to be dealt with by the Customs Authorities of the port, the c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High court directs taxpayer to fulfill pre-deposit conditions, exhaust alternate remedies before challenging tax order.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to exhaust alternate remedies by fulfilling pre-deposit conditions. The court held that no case was made out to depart from the practice of exhausting alternate remedies. The argument that CBIC circulars were not followed could be raised before the appellate authority. Merely styling the im

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Excessive tax payment rectified, refund granted for GST return error.
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 53,08,494/- which was paid in excess along with the return in Form GSTR-3B for the month of March 2023. The excess payment arose due to rectification of an error committed while filing the return for January 2023, wherein the reverse charge liability was not reflected separately and was clubbed with the output tax liability. The High Court allowed the petiti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Overturns GST Registration Cancellation Due to Lack of Evidence, Orders from 2022 and 2024 Nullified.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court quashed the orders dated 29 December 2022, 20 February 2024, and the appellate authority's order dated 08 July 2024, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration retrospectively on grounds of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Court found that the authorities failed to provide cogent material indicating the registration was origin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Applicability of penalty under GST law questioned for GSTR mismatch without fraud allegations.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court expressed doubt on the applicability of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for mere mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1, as the said provision can be invoked only if fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts is alleged. The respondents were permitted to proceed with the impugned Show Cause Notice, but any final orders passed shall not be given effect until

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transitional CENVAT credit allowed for claiming GST refund despite delay in Form GST TRAN-1 processing.
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioner challenged the refund sanctioning orders u/s 54 of the CGST Act on the ground that the unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC), including transitional credit from CENVAT, was ignored. The High Court held that the provisions of Section 54 would apply, and the authorities could not deprive the petitioner of the CENVAT credit available on 01.07.2017 merely because

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GSTR-9 Annual Return and GST reporting: Handling mismatches between auto-populated 8A & 8C.
News
GST
For FY 2023-24 onwards, Table 8A of Form GSTR-9 will be auto-populated from GSTR-2B, leading to a mismatch between values in Tables 8A and 8C. The advisory provides guidance on reporting various scenarios in GSTR-9, such as invoices reported late by suppliers, ITC reversed and reclaimed due to non-payment within 180 days, ITC claimed for goods not received, invoices belonging to the prev

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory on difference in value of Table 8A and 8C of Annual Returns FY 23-24
GST
Dated:- 10-12-2024

As per the Notification No 12/2024 Central Tax dated 10th July 2024 read with Notification No.20/2024-Central Tax Dated 8th October 2024, for FY 2023-24 onwards, the total credit available for inwards supplies shall be auto-populated in the table 8A of Form GSTR 9 from GSTR-2B of the FY 23-24. Further, in table 8C of Form GSTR-9 total value of ITC on inwards supplies received during the FY but availed in next FY up to specified period, need to be filled manually.
2. Various tickets are received, wherein concerns have been raised regarding possible mismatch between the values of table 8A and 8C of Form GSTR-9 for FY 23-24. It i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

is the part of next years GSTR 2B. How to report such transaction in the GSTR 9 of FY 23-24?
Taxpayer shall report such ITC in the Table 8C and in Table 13 as this is the ITC of FY 2023-24. This is in line with the instructions to the Table 8C and Table 13 of GSTR 9
2
Invoice belongs to FY 23-24 and ITC has been claimed in FY 23-24. Due to payment not made to supplier within 180 days, ITC was reversed in 23-24 as per the second proviso to section 16(2) and this ITC is reclaimed in next Year FY 2024-25, after making the payment to supplier. How to report such transaction in the GSTR 9 of FY 23-24?
This reclaimed ITC shall be reported in the table 6H of GSTR 9 for FY 24-25 hence not in the Table 8C and Table 13 of GSTR 9 of FY 2023-24

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ing of GSTR-1 for the tax period of March 23. How to report such transaction in the GSTR 9 of FY 23-24?
This is the ITC of last year (2022-23) and was auto populated in table 8A of GSTR-9 of FY 22-23. Hence, aforesaid value need not to be reported in the table 8C and Table 13 of GSTR-9 for FY 23-24. This is in line with the instruction no 2A given for the notified form GSTR 9 which states that Table 4,5,6 and Table 7 should have the details of current FY only
5
Where to report the reclaim of ITC for an Invoice which belongs to FY 2023-24, and which is claimed, reversed and reclaimed in the same year?
As already clarified by the CBIC press release 3rd July 2019 in the para k, It may be noted that the label in Table 6H clearly states th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory for Biometric-Based Aadhaar Authentication and Document Verification for GST Registration Applicants of Haryana, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura
GST
Dated:- 10-12-2024

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.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ioned in point 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 Haryana, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura.
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
(

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Authority's Negative Blocking of Taxpayer's Credit Ledger Struck Down.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the negative blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of the writ petitioner by the respondents, purportedly exercising powers u/r 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, cannot be sustained. The issue of negative blocking stands conclusively decided in favor of the writ petitioner in light of the judgment in Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Comm

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Case-Laws – GST – Highlights – The High Court held that the negative blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of the writ petitioner by the respondents, purportedly exercising powers u/r 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, cannot be sustained. The issue of negative blocking stands conclusively decided in favor of the writ petitioner in light of the judgment in Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, where it was held that orders disallowing debit from the ECL in excess of the available Input Tax Credit at the time of passing such orders (referred to as Negative blocking) are set aside. Consequently, the petition was allowed. – TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindia.com – TMI – TaxTMI – TMITax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Charitable institution's income prima facie not taxable under CGST Act for lack of business activities.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court prima facie held that the income of the petitioner, a charitable institution registered u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be assessed to tax under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The activities undertaken by a charitable institution would not prima facie fall within the ambit of activities undertaken in the course of or in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Allows Retrospective GST Refunds; Rules Amendment to Refund Formula Clarificatory, Dismissing Prospective Limits.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's refund application for unutilized input tax credit. The court held that the Notification No. 14/2022 amending Rule 89(5) of the GST Rules is clarificatory and curative in nature, rectifying the anomaly in the refund formula. Relying on Supreme Court preceden

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court allows Input Tax Credit claim despite e-way bill mismatch; directs to pay remaining tax within 2 weeks.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s 16(4) of the GST Act due to a discrepancy between the e-way bill and GSTR-3B. The petitioner was directed to deposit the entire tax due of Rs. 87,129/- on issues other than the rejection of ITC invoking Section 16(4) within two weeks from the receipt of t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transitional CENVAT credit allowed despite pending show-cause notice under GST regime.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition and set aside the impugned order denying transition of CENVAT credit of Rs.1,39,31,604/- u/s 140(1) of the CGST Act. The court held that mere issuance of a show-cause notice, subsequently kept in abeyance, cannot disentitle the petitioner from claiming transition of the available CENVAT credit as on 30.06.2017 to the GST regime. The C

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bank's improper use of Escrow fund for loan recovery led to GST non-payment, Court allows writ challenging it.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the respondent Bank's actions in not releasing amounts deposited in an Escrow Account for payment of statutory liabilities like GST from 2017 onwards is maintainable, despite other disputes being adjudicated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Bank's adjustments to the receivables in the Escrow Account for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Rules on Tax Liabilities for Cross-State Construction Projects in Telangana and Maharashtra.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that for a works contract involving construction of a barrage across two states, Telangana and Maharashtra, the place of supply would be determined proportionately based on the value of services rendered in each state as per Section 12(3) of the IGST Act. Consequently, the supply would qualify as an intra-state supply u/s 8 of the IGST Act in proportion to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Dismisses Petition; CAG Can't Audit Private Firms, Extends Limitation for Suppression Allegations.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the show cause notice issued by the Respondents. The Court held that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) or its officials do not have jurisdiction to audit private companies like the Petitioner. Since the impugned show cause notice was not based on any audit undertaken by CAG/CERA, the Court

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Discrepancies in notice & assessment order violated natural justice; petitioner granted chance to present case.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court set aside the impugned order and treated it as a Show Cause Notice due to discrepancies between the Show Cause Notice and the assessment order, thereby violating principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The petitioner was granted four weeks to file objections with supporting documents, which the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Assessment Orders Voided for 2017-2020 Due to Limitation Issues and Lack of Personal Hearings Under GST Acts.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court allowed the petitions challenging the assessment orders for 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 on the grounds of limitation and violation of principles of natural justice. Regarding limitation, the court held that the extended due dates for filing returns fell within the limitation period after excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as per

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's challenge to tax demand stayed pending constitution of appellate tribunal.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court disposed of the petitioner's appeal challenging the impugned order and consequent summary of demand in Form GST APL-04. The court held that the petitioners may file an appeal once the president or state president of the appellate tribunal constituted u/s 107 of the Act of 2017 assumes office. Subject to depositing 20% of the remaining disputed tax amount, if not already d

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =