Goods and Services Tax

Advisory on issuance of Notices/Orders without digital signatures of the issuing authorities
GST
Dated:- 26-9-2024

Doubts have been created regarding the validity of documents issued by the tax officers on the common portal viz.  Show cause Notices, Order of Assessment, Refund Orders etc. which are not containing the Digital signatures on the pdf. document downloaded from the common portal. In this context, it is to be mentioned that such documents (i.e. SCN/Orders) are generated on the common portal from the login of the officer, who logs in through Digital Signatures. Further, these documents being computer generated on the command of the officer, may not require physical signatures of the officer as these documents can

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

login through the link https://services.gst.gov.in/services/verifyRfn
It is further mentioned that all the critical actions on the part of officers are performed through digital signature authentication of the officer concerned who is authorised for taking that ac on, such as:. 
1. Issue of any notice in any module
2. Issue of any order in any module
3. Issue of any refund order
Thanks 
Team GSTN
=============
Document 1
↑
0
https://services.gst.gov.in/services/verifyRfn
Goods and Services Tax
Government of India, States and Union Territories
Home
Services
GST Law
Skip to Main Content
REGISTER
LOGIN
Downloads â–¼ Search Taxpayer
Help and Taxpayer Facilities
e-Invoice
News and Updates
Dashboard Ser

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Quashed ITC denial order for dual GSTIN against single PAN; ITC adjustment allowed as per Circular 183/15/2022.
Case-Laws
GST
High Court quashed order denying adjustment of Input Tax Credit appearing in GSTR-2A due to issuance of two GSTINs against one PAN. Circular No.183/15/2022-GST applied, aligning with previous judgments allowing benefit of circulars issued during pendency of appeals. Joint Commissioner directed to pass fresh order in line with the circular, allowing adjustment of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty reduced in e-waybill updation case due to genuine difficulty.
Case-Laws
GST
Petition for review dismissed concerning imposition of penalty for non-updation of four e-waybills. Court acknowledged e-waybills were updated within two minutes of interception and genuine difficulty in immediately updating part-B. Previous order, being non-speaking and harsh, modified penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. Difficult to conclude court overlooked non-updation of part-B of fourth e-waybill. No reason t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Rules GST Registration Cancellation Unlawful; Orders Restoration Due to Lack of Statutory Support and Unreasonable Action.
Case-Laws
GST
This is a case involving the cancellation of a petitioner's GST registration by the respondent authorities. The court held that Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 86B of the GST Rules, which were relied upon for cancellation, lack statutory backing under the GST Act and are ultra vires. The cancellation of registration was deemed a disproportionate punish

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Incorrect tax return filing led to refund rejection; court orders reconsideration after hearing petitioner's arguments.
Case-Laws
GST
The court held that the officer failed to consider the petitioner's case that the amount received in February 2024 was erroneously described as an advance, which was rectified by filing an amended return. This aspect was not considered while passing the order rejecting the refund claim. Consequently, the order was quashed, and the respondents were directe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner Entitled to Input Tax Credit Under CENVAT Rules; Court Condones Procedural Irregularities, Quashes Order.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court ruled that the petitioner's entitlement to avail Input Tax Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be denied, as long as the credit was validly earned. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., which held that validly earned credit is indefeasible and cannot be re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST assessment order set aside for fresh decision after procedural lapse, subject to partial deposit.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner challenged assessment orders citing lack of jurisdiction, as entire duty liability was discharged from ITC availed at import. Court rejected jurisdiction challenge based on precedent, holding respondent competent to pass order under circular and GST Act provisions. However, petitioner failed to provide proper reply with tabulations and documents when show cause

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax liability determination flawed: Jurisdictional issues, non-consideration of reply on RCM and trade payables.
Case-Laws
GST
Principles of natural justice violated due to lack of jurisdiction and non-application of mind. Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) liability issue: Petitioner's reply on amounts declared and paid under RCM greater than notice amount disregarded. Trade payables issue: Petitioner's reply on all trade payables below 180 days ignored without consideration. Impugned orde

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Overturns Denial of SEZ Unit GST Refund, Citing Precedent from Britannia Industries Case.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court quashed the order rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner, an SEZ Unit, on the ground that the petitioner was not allowed to claim a refund under the GST law. The Court held that the ratio laid down in the Britannia Industries Limited case, where it was held that the refund claim for the tax period on supplies made to an SEZ Unit/Developer can be claimed

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Unfair tax adjudication under UP GST Act – Petitioner's right to personal hearing denied. Court intervenes, directs fresh hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
Principles of natural justice violated in tax adjudication process under U.P. GST Act, 2017. No opportunity for personal hearing provided to petitioner despite request in reply to show cause notice. Writ petition allowed, impugned order dated 17.08.2022 set aside. Assessing Officer directed to fix date, time, and place for personal hearing with

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Invalidates GST Notification for Lack of Council Recommendation & State Notification; Orders Set Aside.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court examined the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023, which extended the time limit for passing orders u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act). The key issues were the absence of a recommendation from the GST Council and the absence of a corresponding state government notification parallel to the Central Government's notification. The Court held that exercising powers u/s 168A of the CGST Act to extend time limits requires a recommendation from the GST Council and the existence of force majeure circumstances, as defined in the Explanation to Section 168A. Cit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Dissolution of partnership firm: Tax notice quashed, petitioner granted chance to prove tax payments.
Case-Laws
GST
The Court quashed the show cause notice (SCN) issued to the petitioner in a tax matter due to the dissolution of a partnership firm. The petitioner expressed willingness to participate in proceedings before the tax department and demonstrate tax payments made concerning the firm. The Court set aside the impugned order and notices, granting liberty to the respondent authori

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Quashed unlawful tax audit orders against firm under insolvency resolution.
Case-Laws
GST
The court quashed orders related to audit and intimation liability issued against the petitioner company u/s 65 of the CGST Act for financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The orders were found to be without jurisdiction or legal authority, as a resolution plan for the company had already been approved by the NCLT, rendering such proceedings impermissible under applicable legal precedents. Consequentl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bank documents seizure challenged, court orders return for business operations. Attachment orders set aside pending liability determination.
Case-Laws
GST
Challenge to provisional attachment order concerning bank account – pre-show cause notice issued – court held documents seized should be returned as petitioner is in real estate business and requires documents for operations – order of seizure not interfered with but respondents directed to return seized documents – regarding provisio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Acetylene gas supply not covered u/r 55, requires tax invoice – High Court directs authorities to revisit penalties.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that Rule 55 of the CGST Rules, 2017 applies only to the four circumstances mentioned in Rule 55 (a) to (d), and the supply of Acetylene Gas is not covered by Rule 55 (a). Therefore, the goods should have been covered by a tax invoice. The competent authorities were directed to consider the case u/s 122 of the CGST/SGST Acts and impose ap

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Firm's auditor wrongly served GST notice due to absent GST authorization; order passed denying personal hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner failed to authorize representative for GST matters after registration under GST regime, resulting in show cause notice being served on auditor without petitioner's knowledge. Petitioner unable to respond or attend hearing due to lack of notice. Order passed without granting opportunity of personal hearing, violating natural justice principles. High Co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

A government-owned company loses GST exemption on legal services due to insufficient equity stake.
Case-Laws
GST
The key points are: The applicant (THDCIL) does not qualify as a “Government Entity” under GST laws as it fails to meet the criteria of having 90% or more equity or control by the government. Although initially established with 100% government equity, currently the government's stake is only 25.504% due to equity dilution. Consequently, THDCIL cannot avail the GST exemption o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ruling Confirms GST Non-Applicability on IIT Roorkee's Electricity Cost Reimbursements; Application Rejected as Duplicative.
Case-Laws
GST
The ruling pertains to the applicability of GST on electricity charges recovered by IIT Roorkee from its commercial occupants. The key points are: IIT Roorkee sought an advance ruling on whether GST is applicable on the electricity charges it recovers from commercial occupants, representing only reimbursement of actual costs charged by the power corp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Archival of GST Returns data on GST portal
GST
Dated:- 24-9-2024

1. Section 39 (11) of the CGST Act, 2017 , implemented w.e.f 01-10-2023 vide Notification No. 28/2023 – Central Tax dated 31th July, 2023, provides that the taxpayers shall not be allowed file their GST returns after the expiry of a period of three years from the due date of furnishing the said return.
2. Further, as per GST portal data policy, data for view of taxpayer to be retained for seven years only. Therefore,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST assessee's Input Tax Credit claim denied without examining evidence; High Court remands case for fresh adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioner had availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) from certain suppliers whose registration was subsequently cancelled. The petitioner contended that at the relevant time, the suppliers were registered under GST laws, and the petitioner had paid the invoiced amount including GST, entitling it to claim ITC. However, the adjudicating authority did not exam

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Rules Approved Insolvency Plan Extinguishes Unlisted Statutory Dues, Overrides Tax Demands Under IBC.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court examined the issue of liability to clear statutory dues post-insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The resolution plan approved by NCLT provided for payment of Rs. 25 crores towards clearing all statutory dues, including claims by government authorities. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam Mishra

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Rules Against Consolidated Tax Notices; Flawed Show Cause Notices Under CGST Act Violate Legal Precedents.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the show cause notices issued by the respondent u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, were flawed due to the improper consolidation of multiple tax periods into a single notice. Section 73(10) mandates a specific time limit from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the financial year to which the tax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer gets opportunity to challenge Cess levy before appeals authority in GST dispute.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ petition filed challenging the order passed by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) regarding levy of Cess while calculating applicable tax u/s 129(1)(a) of KGST and CGST Act. Petitioner did not raise contention regarding levy of Cess before JCCT (Appeals). High Court held since ground regarding levy of Cess raised for first time, opportunity be accorded to petitioner

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayer's mistaken claim of ITC rectified in revised return; High Court orders fresh hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioner wrongfully availed input tax credit while filing GSTR-3B for 2017-18. However, the petitioner, being an honest taxpayer, noticed the mistake and rectified it by filing a revised return in August 2018, reversing the wrongly claimed input tax credit. Section 39(9) of the CGST/SGST Acts allows rectification of returns before November 30 of the following financial year

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Enabling manual appeal filing due to non-uploading of order on portal within 1 week from certified copy receipt.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ petition disposed of directing petitioner to file appeal against order manually within one week from receipt of certified copy of judgment as per proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 108 of CGST/SGST Rules, despite inability to file appeal online due to non-uploading of order on portal. Appeal to be treated as filed in time and disposed of by Appellate Authority

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =