Goods and Services Tax

Court Overturns Tax Order Due to Lack of Notice Visibility, Grants Petitioner Benefit of Doubt.
Case-Laws
GST
The court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, quashing the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-16, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner was unaware of the issuance of the reminder and the passing of the orders, and could not appear before the authority or question the validity of the orders within the limitation period.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Chemicals like soda ash, epsom salt taxed at 8%, not covered under dyes/chemicals entry.
Case-Laws
GST
Sodium Bicarbonate (Soda Ash) and Magnesium Sulphate (Epsom Salt) are not enumerated in Entry-9 of the VI Schedule, which covers dyes and chemicals. A Government Order directs a levy of 8% sales tax on all chemicals not covered under Entry-9. In a similar case, the erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh held that any chemical not enumerated in Entry-9 would fall under the G

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective amendment on time limit for GST appeals clarified; Gujarat & Karnataka HCs applied it. Delayed appeal rejection quashed.
Case-Laws
GST
Amendment to Rule 108(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 regarding time limitation for filing appeals u/s 107 is clarificatory in nature with retrospective effect. Gujarat and Karnataka High Courts have considered retrospective application. Impugned order rejecting appeal on grounds of delay quashed, matter remitted to appella

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Challenges GST Registration Cancellation for Late Filings; Urges Better Support for Small Traders.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed the issue of cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns and the rejection of an appeal on the ground of time limitation. The respondent claimed that the statute prescribes a specific limitation period of 90 days to file an appeal, and the petitioner's appeal was time-barred. The Court held that no useful purpose would be

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fat-laden food product classified as vegetable oil preparation, not margarine. Attracts 5% GST rate.
Case-Laws
GST
The food product containing 22.94% fat cannot be classified as Margarine under chapter heading 1517 10 as per Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011 which requires fat content not less than 80% mass/mass for Margarine. The product is a preparation of vegetable fat specifically covered under 1517 90 90, not under residuary chapter heading 2106. Since it is a preparation

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ruling voided for non-disclosure of ongoing proceedings on same issue.
Case-Laws
GST
The applicant had suppressed material facts from the Authority for Advance Ruling by mis-declaring that the issue was not pending in any other proceedings, when in fact, proceedings on the same issue had already commenced by the DGGI. Upon being informed of this by the Appellant, the Authority for Advance Ruling declared the Ruling void ab initio u/s 104 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Clarification on Margin Scheme: Scrap vs. Second-Hand Goods Under CGST Rules for Tax Treatment of Metal and Battery Scrap.
Case-Laws
GST
Determining whether certain goods, specifically old used iron scrap, used lead acid batteries, old used aluminum utensils and other aluminum scrap, old used brass utensils and other scrap, used old steel utensils scrap, old used scrap of copper, used waste plastic bags and used plastic PET bottles, qualify for the margin scheme u/r 32(5) of the CGST Ru

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advance ruling appeal dismissed due to insufficient fee deposit.
Case-Laws
GST
The appellant was required to deposit a total fee of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- CGST and Rs. 10,000/- HGST) as a statutory precondition for filing an appeal against the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana. However, the appellant paid only Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- CGST and Rs. 5000/- HGST), which is not the required fee. Consequently, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that the appe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Lime with less than 98% calcium oxide/hydroxide classified under CTH 2522 20 00, taxable at 5% GST.
Case-Laws
GST
Slaked/hydrated lime containing less than 98% calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide is classifiable under CTH 2522 20 00 and taxable at 2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST as per entry Sl. No. 131 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 as amended. This ruling is based on the clarification from the All India Lime Manufacturers Association and laboratory analy

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Denial of refund quashed for lack of personal hearing; remanded for reconsideration after due process.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court quashed refund rejection orders for lack of opportunity for personal hearing as mandated by Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017, violating principles of natural justice. The show cause notices allowed 15 days for response, which petitioner complied with, but hearing was allegedly held before reply. No clear evidence of hearing intimation existed. Rule 92(3) requ

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Improper GST registration suspension over NOC technicality quashed; business continuity restored.
Case-Laws
GST
The petition challenges the suspension of GST registration by the respondent authority. The court held that the suspension order lacked justification as the petitioner had complied with registration requirements, including submitting NOC for principal place of business. For additional premises, NOC is not mandated under GST rules. The authority erred in suspending registration

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Quashes GST Orders Due to Improper Notice Service and Lack of Consideration of Assessee's Replies.
Case-Laws
GST
Principles of natural justice were upheld in a case concerning service of show cause notices (SCNs) issued u/s 73 of the GST Act. The SCNs were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, but not under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab. The court observed that there was no material to reject the contention that the impugned order was not refle

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner wins: SCN demanding IGST payment on manpower services quashed; Input tax credit upheld as validly availed.
Case-Laws
GST
Petition challenging SCN demanding IGST paid on manpower supply services received by petitioner. Court held State GST Authorities had already initiated proceedings against petitioner on same matter, barring Central GST Authorities from initiating proceedings u/s 6(2)(b) CGST Act. Impugned SCN demanding IGST quashed. Regarding denial of input tax credit for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GSTR 3B mismatch with auto-populated GSTR 2A; tax demand partially recovered from bank; order set aside for reconsideration after reply.
Case-Laws
GST
Tax assessment proceedings involving GSTR 3B returns mismatch with auto-populated GSTR 2A. Disputed tax demand partially recovered through bank appropriation exceeding 10%. Order confirming demand solely for non-reply to show cause notice set aside for reconsideration after petitioner's reply. Matter remanded to allow petitioner to file r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's GST challenge remanded due to lack of portal monitoring; tax deposit and reply chance given.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner challenged the impugned order on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, asserting unawareness of proceedings. Court observed petitioner's non-participation resulted from failure to monitor GST portal and respond to notices. To provide opportunity, impugned orders were set aside, matters remanded for reconsideration subject to condition that p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anticipatory bail allowed for fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit sans actual goods supply, with terms & conditions.
Case-Laws
GST
Anticipatory bail granted in a case involving fraudulent availing of Input Tax Credit and passing it without actual supply of goods. Provisions of CST Act, CGST Act, and judgments in related cases were considered. The High Court observed the issue of anticipatory bail in CGST offenses as unsettled and exercised discretion. Bail granted subject to terms an

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Time Limits in CGST Appeals Are Advisory, Allowing Flexibility in Filing; Appeals Focus on GTA Services Valuation.
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR held that the time limit for passing an order u/s 101 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not mandatory, and the word 'shall' should be interpreted in an advisory manner to avoid denying the right of appeal. The appeals were filed within the statutory period and not barred by limitation. Manual filing of appeals is allowed u/r 107A of the CGST Rules, 2017. Both

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Marriage hall construction: ITC denial under CGST for materials, machinery.
Case-Laws
GST
Application for advance ruling rejected as questions raised were already pending in show cause notice proceedings under CGST/KGST Act. First proviso to Section 98(2) bars admission of application where issue is already pending or decided in applicant's case under CGST Act provisions. Input tax credit admissibility on construction materials for Marriage/Convention hall and inward supplies like DG se

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST 1.5% on affordable, 7.5% non-affordable apartments. Commercial 18%. Construction ITC restricted except plant & machinery.
Case-Laws
GST
GST rates on supply of affordable and non-affordable residential apartments in a real estate project (REP) are 1.5% and 7.5% respectively, while commercial apartments attract 18% GST. A promoter can supply affordable and non-affordable apartments conjointly, subject to prescribed conditions. For construction of commercial apartments in a REP other t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Company under insolvency gets respite on GST registration cancellation to revive biz.
Case-Laws
GST
GST registration cancellation due to non-filing of returns and non-payment of taxes. Considering the company underwent CIRP process under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, leeway granted to revive business. Petitioner directed to file application for revocation of registration cancellation by specific date, accompanied by draft returns proposed for filing upon restoration. Writ petition dis

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancelled retrospectively without reasons, violating natural justice principles.
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration without assigning reasons violates principles of natural justice. The impugned order lacked reasoning for cancelling registration retrospectively from a particular date, having cascading effect on input tax credit. Mere allegation of non-existence was insufficient, as petitioner substantiated temporary suspension due to ill health

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismissed for alternate remedy; no hearing due to petitioner's failure to update address.
Case-Laws
GST
The petition was declined on grounds of maintainability due to availability of an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The contention regarding failure of principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity of hearing was rejected, as intimations were sent to the petitioner's registered address, and the petitioner failed to notify the change

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Arbitrary cancellation of registration without reasons & hearing flouts natural justice & equality.
Case-Laws
GST
Cancellation of registration by adjudicating authority without assigning reasons and without application of mind violates principles of natural justice and Article 14 of Constitution. Providing reasons is essence of judicial proceedings. Delay beyond permissible period cannot be condoned. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to pass reasoned order after granting opportu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST authorities cancelled registration retrospectively without proper reasoning. Court intervened, citing lack of substantive grounds.
Case-Laws
GST
Cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect challenged. Court held that authorities failed to provide substantive reasons for rejecting application and issuing show cause notice/cancellation order, merely stating “reply unsatisfactory” and “others” without reasoning. Petition allowed, directing cancellation of petitioner's GS

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Overseas service provider wrongly classified as intermediary; entitled to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Case-Laws
GST
The court held that the petitioner was not an intermediary but directly engaged in providing services to an entity outside India. The respondents erroneously classified the petitioner as an intermediary without any material evidence or tripartite agreement. The petitioner's consistent stand was supplying services on a principal-to-principal basis. Merely p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =