Goods and Services Tax

GST registration cancellation quashed for lack of reasons, retrospective effect revoked.
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration was challenged due to lack of adequate reasons provided for cancellation and violation of principles of natural justice. The High Court, relying on Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises case, held that authorities failed to assign even rudimentary reasons for retroactive cancellation, rendering the order unsustainable. Additionally, the original show

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Dismissal of late appeal against GST registration cancellation due to unexplained delay beyond limitation period.
Case-Laws
GST
The petition was dismissed due to the appeal being filed beyond the limitation period without a proper explanation for the delay. The High Court held that it cannot condone the delay under extraordinary jurisdiction when the petitioners failed to provide valid grounds. The Supreme Court precedent in Singh Enterprises case affirmed that there is no power to cond

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Clarifies GST Appeal Process; Directs Appeals Against Assistant Commissioner's Orders to Commissioner.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dealt with the maintainability of a petition concerning the non-constitution of an Appellate Tribunal and the jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Commissioner as a “proper officer” and “adjudicating authority” under the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court held that since the Assistant Commissioner was assigned functions as a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mining lease deed registration fee & stamp duty – GST audit ongoing, advance ruling inadmissible.
Case-Laws
GST
The applicant's advance ruling application seeking nil rate of GST on stamp duty and registration fees paid for registering a mining lease deed is inadmissible. The matter is already under audit proceedings initiated by the Audit Commissionerate demanding GST payment. As per Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, an advance ruling cannot be sought on issues already pending in audit. T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Remands CGST Act Exclusion Case for New Ruling; Emphasizes Functionality Test for Service Providers.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court examined the constitutional validity of exclusion (iii) to the Explanation to Section 17 of the CGST Act regarding the applicability to service providers. The authorities analyzed the matter from the perspective of definitions of 'plant' and machinery, relying on dictionaries, but did not focus on the functionality test. The Supreme Court held that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST proceedings avoided: Central authority to proceed except for FY 2017-18 already covered by State.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed the issue of parallel proceedings initiated by both State and Central GST Authorities against the petitioner for the same assessment years. For the Financial Year 2017-18, the State GST Authority had initiated actions first, while for the remaining years, the Central GST Authority took the initial steps. The Court directed the Central GST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Dismisses ITC Claim on Construction Goods; Fact-Finding Required to Determine Eligibility as 'Plant'.
Case-Laws
GST
The case pertains to the validity of input tax credit (ITC) availed on construction goods for a building leased to an educational institution. The Supreme Court held that each case involving malls or buildings must undergo a fact-finding inquiry to determine if it satisfies the functionality test of being a 'plant' u/s 17(5)(d). If the building qualifies as a plant,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

State GST Demand Quashed for Lack of Jurisdiction; Petitioner Must Address Central GST Notice on Manpower Services 2017-2022.
Case-Laws
GST
Challenge to the State GST authorities demanding input tax credit availed by the petitioner along with interest and penalty for IGST paid on manpower supply services received during 2017-2022. It holds that the impugned show cause notices issued by the State GST authorities are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, as the Central GST authori

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty for Expired E-way Bill Reduced; No Tax Evasion Intent Found, Rs. 10,000 Fine Imposed Instead of Maximum Penalty.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts – expiry of e-way bill – mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting goods without revalidating e-way bill. However, once plausible explanation provided by transporter/assessee and no attempt to evade tax found, proceedings should not culminate in maximum

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer's GST demand order set aside due to consultant's non-communication, to be reconsidered after remitting 10% disputed tax.
Case-Laws
GST
Breach of principles of natural justice occurred as the petitioner was unaware of proceedings due to non-communication by the consultant entrusted with GST compliances, resulting in an order confirming tax demand due to non-response. Considering the petitioner's inability to participate, an opportunity should be provided to contest the demand on

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Demand Order Overturned Due to Improper Notice Service; Petitioner Can Contest After Partial Payment.
Case-Laws
GST
Breach of principles of natural justice occurred due to lack of proper service of show cause notice (SCN). The impugned order and preceding notices were uploaded on the GST portal but not communicated through other modes. There was a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and auto-populated GSTR 2A. The High Court held that since the petitioner could not par

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Exemption Removed for Consultancy Services to Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Post-Jan 2022; 18% GST Applies.
Case-Laws
GST
Rate of tax applicable on services provided by the applicant to Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP) as part of the Jal Jeevan Mission, a Government of India mission. The services are classified as “Technical Consultancy for Project Development and Management support services” under SAC code 998399, attracting 18% GST (9% CGST & 9% SGST), unless exempted. For se

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delay in filing GST appeal not condoned beyond statutory limitation period.
Case-Laws
GST
The court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The petitioner relied on a notification dated 02.11.2023, which allowed appeals against orders u/ss 73 or 74 of the GST Act passed before 31.03.2023 to be filed by 31.01.2024 without being time-barred. However, the impugned order in the present case was passed on 20.07.2023, after the cut-off date mentioned in the n

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Quashes Order Blocking Electronic Credit Ledger Due to Lack of Hearing and Justification, Upholds Fair Process.
Case-Laws
GST
Constitutional validity of Rule 86A of the CGST/SGST Rules, 2017, which was challenged for violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The court held that since no pre-decisional hearing was granted before passing the impugned order blocking the petitioner's electronic credit ledger, and the order lacked independent or cogent reasons ex

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Time limit extension for tax assessments upheld; GST Council's Covid recommendations justified.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the Notification No. 9/2023 dated 31-03-2023, extending the time limit u/s 168A of the CGST Act, was valid and cannot be faulted. The explanation to Section 168A empowers the Government to extend time limits on the recommendation of the GST Council. The Council's decision was based on representations, increased workload due to Covid-19, and the inability

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal Decided Ex-Parte, Violating Natural Justice; Case Remitted for Fresh Hearing Within Three Months.
Case-Laws
GST
The appellate authority erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte in the absence of the appellant or their counsel. The statutory mandate requires the appellate authority to hear the appellant, conduct further inquiry if necessary, and pass a reasoned order confirming, modifying, or annulling the decision appealed against. Deciding the case ex-parte without giving a reasona

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Declares Bank Guarantee for Bail Illegal, Encourages Other Valid Conditions Instead.
Case-Laws
GST
The Court held that imposing a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee while granting bail is illegal. The Apex Court, in Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India, ruled that directing the appellant to deposit a sum as a condition for bail is not sustainable and should be set aside. The Court observed that it encounters numerous cases where Courts impose an illegal condition of furnishing

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Amnesty for late GSTR-9C filing till 01.04.2023, no late fees if filed by 31.08.2023.
Case-Laws
GST
Amnesty scheme – Failure to file annual returns from financial year 2018-2019 till 01.04.2023, but filed before 31.08.2023. Justification for continuing notices for non-payment of late fees for belated GSTR-9C filed before 01.04.2023. Court held, relying on Anishia Chandrakanth v. Superintendent judgment, no justification for continuing notices for non-payment of late fees for belated GST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transitional GST credit allowed after rectification of TRAN-1/TRAN-2 forms.
Case-Laws
GST
Rule 117(4)(b)(iii) of the CGST Rules was challenged as ultra vires Section 140(3) of the CGST Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioner has the right to avail transitional credit legally due, and the authorities should permit rectification of TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by making necessary software changes. The respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to fi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory – Reg 07
GST
Dated:- 22-10-2024

Dear Taxpayer,
GSTN has introduced an update to facilitate the registration compliance for buyers of metal scrap through form GST REG-07. This update follows the new GST provisions for metal scrap buyers as outlined in the advisory issued on October 13.
Taxpayers in this category are required to select "Others" in Part B of Table 2 under the "Constitution of Business" section. A text box will appear where the taxpayer m

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Attention: Validation of bank account details while adding bank account as non core amendment
GST
Dated:- 22-10-2024

Dear Taxpayer,
GSTN has implemented a validation process for cases where a taxpayer attempts a non-core amendment to update bank account details. Taxpayers are requested to follow the procedure outlined below while adding bank account details on the portal.
(I) When the bank account details are entered, the taxpayer is required to click on “VALIDATE ACCOUNT DETAIL

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Allows Late Amendment of GSTR-1 for Export Invoice Errors, Emphasizing Fair Credit for Taxpayers.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court allowed the petitioner to rectify GSTR-1 for the months of October and November 2022 regarding five export invoices, despite the statutory time limit having expired. The court noted the petitioner's claim of genuine mistake and the fact that the error came to light before the deadline for correcting GSTR-1 u/s 37(3) of the GST Act. However, the petitioner

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Denial of input tax credit if tax not paid to government upheld.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 16(2)(c) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, denies input tax credit if the tax charged has not been deposited with the government. The High Court upheld this provision, stating that input tax credit is a conditional right and cannot be availed unless the tax collected has actually been paid to the exchequer. The Court relied on its previous decision in Nahasshukoor v. Assistant Com

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer gets stay on tax recovery due to State's delay in constituting Tribunal.
Case-Laws
GST
Petition filed under Article 226 challenging non-constitution of Tribunal and seeking stay on recovery of tax. State authorities acknowledged non-constitution and issued notification providing limitation period for appeal before Tribunal shall commence only after President/State President assumes office. Held, subject to deposit of 20% of remaining disputed tax amount, petitioner entitled to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Error in GST filing corrected to claim ITC; court orders manual form rectification.
Case-Laws
GST
Rectification of GST Return filed incorrectly as B2C instead of B2B for the periods 2020-21 and 2021-22 was permitted to enable the petitioner to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit. The court held that allowing rectification would not cause any tax loss, and denying it would unnecessarily prejudice the petitioner. Relying on a Madras High Court precedent, the court directed the respondent

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =