Goods and Services Tax

Tax Credit Fraud Syndicate Exposed: Systematic Fake ITC Scheme Unravels with Overwhelming Forensic Evidence of Rs. 15 Crore Fraud
Case-Laws
GST
DSC dismisses anticipatory bail application involving systematic tax credit fraud. Investigation revealed a complex nexus of fictitious firms (M/s Khwaish Enterprise, M/s Sunrise Enterprises, M/s AC Goel Tradelinks) systematically generating fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual goods supply. Forensic analysis of GSTR-2A records demonstrate

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Electronic Service via Common Portal Legally Valid Under GST Act, Section 169(1)(d) Enables Direct Digital Notification Without Additional Requirements
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that service of notice/order via common portal is valid under GST Act. Section 169(1)(d) independently provides for electronic service through common portal, without requiring additional notification under Section 146. The statutory provision explicitly enables serving decisions, orders, summons, and notices electro

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Supplier Status Challenge: GST E-Way Bill Penalty Reduced from Rs.7,36,490 to Rs.25,000 Under Section 2(105)
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that the petitioner, not being a 'supplier' under GST Act Section 2(105), was improperly penalized Rs.7,36,490/- for failing to generate Part-B of E-Way Bill during goods transportation for job work. The court found the penalty disproportionate, considering the petitioner had generated Part-A of E-Way Bill and provided a valid Delivery Challan. The impugned

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST Refund Dispute Remanded: Tax Authority Must Provide Hearing and Reconsider Order Under Rule 96B
Case-Laws
GST
HC remanded the matter concerning IGST refund dispute, setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 30.08.2024. The court directed the petitioner to file response to the show cause notice by 02.05.2025, mandating the tax authority to provide personal hearing and issue a fresh order in compliance with legal principles. While rejecting jurisdictional challenges, the co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Zero-Rated Services Refund Upheld: Registration Gaps Cannot Block Input Tax Credit Claim Under Sections 54(1) and 16(3)
Case-Laws
GST
HC allows petitioner's claim for input tax credit (ITC) refund on zero-rated services, holding that registration without specific service category details does not invalidate refund eligibility. The court interpreted Sections 54(1) and 16(3) of CGST and IGST Acts harmoniously, determining that a registered person can claim refund irrespective of service c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Criminal Proceedings Under CGST Act Require Prudent Evaluation of Evidence and Proportionality Before Arresting Taxpayers
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that CGST authorities must exercise prudence before initiating criminal proceedings against a taxpayer. In this case, the arrest for alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit was premature and disproportionate, as no prior adjudication or quantified demand under Section 74 of CGST Act was established. The court emphasized that government authorities m

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Leasehold Rights Transfer of Industrial Plot Not Taxable Under GST, Exempt from Levy per CGST Act Provisions
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that assignment of leasehold rights for an industrial plot, involving transfer of land and constructed buildings to a third party for a lump-sum consideration, does not constitute a taxable supply under GST regulations. The court determined that Section 7(1)(a) of CGST Act, read with Clause 5(b) of Schedule II and Clause 5 of Schedule III, shall not apply t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancellation Voided: Procedural Fairness Demands Proper Hearing and Opportunity to Defend Business Interests
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that due to the death of key business principals and potential violation of natural justice principles, the GST registration cancellation proceedings against the Petitioner were procedurally flawed. The Court set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, and directed the Petitioner be granted a substantive

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Appeal Allowed Beyond Limitation Period: Exceptional Relief Granted Based on Delayed Knowledge and Statutory Compliance
Case-Laws
GST
HC granted relief to the Petitioner by permitting an appeal against the tax demand of Rs. 7,88,611/- beyond standard limitation period. Despite not interfering with the original order, the Court recognized the Petitioner's claim of delayed knowledge and allowed appeal filing subject to mandatory pre-deposit requirements under Section 107 of CGST Act.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective Penalty Under Section 122(1A) Challenged: Legal Challenge Highlights Potential Procedural Irregularity in Statutory Application
Case-Laws
GST
HC granted ad-interim relief to petitioners challenging retrospective application of penalty under Section 122(1A). The court found a prima facie case exists, noting the statutory provision was enacted on 1 January 2021 but sought to impose penalties for period prior to enforcement (July 2017 to December 2020). The court's interim or

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Quashes GST Registration Cancellation Order for Deceased Taxpayer's Heir Due to Lack of Substantive Evidence
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition challenging a GST registration cancellation order under section 93(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017. The order against a deceased taxpayer was deemed perverse and unsustainable, as the respondent failed to provide material evidence demonstrating the petitioner's continued operation of the deceased father's proprietary concern after obtainin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Judicial Intervention Halts Tax Penalty Enforcement, Mandates Goods Release and Security Compliance Under Section 112
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the appeal against the Additional Commissioner's order under Section 112 of UPGST Act, 2017, cannot be immediately adjudicated due to non-constitution of appellate tribunal. The penalty order is stayed, and seized goods shall be released subject to compliance with Rule 140 of CGST Rules, 2017. The previously deposited penalty amount shall be ad

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST Act Amendment: Interim Deposit Reduced from 20% to 10% Under Finance Act, 2024 Provisions
Case-Laws
GST
HC modified its prior interim order regarding CGST Act amendment, reducing the mandatory deposit from twenty percent to ten percent as per the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. The court interpreted Section 112(8) and Section 143, concluding that the statutory amendment directly impacts the interim deposit requirement. Consequently, the original direction for twenty percent deposit shal

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan Bars Pre-Approval Tax Proceedings, Extinguishing Dues and Preventing New Recovery Attempts Under Section 31(1)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that once a Resolution Plan is approved under IBC Section 31(1), only debts specified in the plan remain payable, binding on all authorities. Tax proceedings relating to the period prior to plan approval stand extinguished. The impugned show cause notice and order under Section 73 of CGST Act for Financial Year 2019-20,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Restoration: Assessees Granted Portal Access to File or Revise TRAN-1 Forms Under Recent Directive
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled on Input Tax Credit TRAN-1 declaration, following SC directive in Filco Trade Centre case. Pursuant to SC order and departmental circular, web portal was reopened, allowing assessees to file or revise TRAN-1 forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions. Petitioner utilized the facility to file TRAN-1 form, resolving all previously ra

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

No GST on UPI Transactions: Government Confirms Zero Taxation for Digital Payments Under Rs. 2,000
News
GST
The GOI officially refutes claims of proposed GST on UPI transactions over Rs.2,000, confirming no such taxation measure exists. CBDT has eliminated Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) on Person-to-Merchant UPI transactions, rendering GST inapplicable. An active Incentive Scheme from FY 2021-22 supports low-value UPI transactions, with escalating allocations (FY2021-22: Rs.1,389 crore; F

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Invalidates GST Rule 86A Blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger Due to Procedural Defects and Lack of Fair Hearing
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) under Rule 86A of CGST Rules, 2017 was procedurally invalid. The order was quashed due to absence of pre-decisional hearing, lack of independent reasons to believe, and reliance on borrowed satisfaction from enforcement authorities. The court directed immediate unblocking of petitioner's ECL, em

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Natural Justice Prevails: GST Authorities Penalized for Denying Hearing Rights Under Section 75(4)
Case-Laws
GST
HC found a clear violation of natural justice principles under Section 75(4) of GST Act, 2017, where administrative authorities failed to provide personal hearing to the petitioner. The ex-parte assessment and show cause notice were procedurally defective, with 'NA' marked against hearing date despite specific hearing request. The Court imposed Rs. 20,000 cost on the Joint Co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Government Contractor Wins Tax Dispute: Mega Exemption Notification 25/2012 Shields Services from Extended Limitation Period
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that the service tax demand against the government contractor was invalid. The court found the services were exempted under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012, and the respondent could not invoke the extended limitation period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice was time-barred, and there was no evidenc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Legal Challenge Succeeds: Partial Bank Account Release Granted with 10% Security in GST Evasion Case
Case-Laws
GST
HC partially allowed the petition challenging provisional attachment of bank accounts for alleged GST evasion. The court found that complete bank account attachment would prejudice the petitioner's business operations. The ruling mandates maintaining a 10% minimum balance as security while the GST evasion matter is adjudicated. The alleged tax evasion amount of Rs. 15.09 cr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Assessment Overturned: Section 73 Limits Challenged, Demand Invalidated Due to Procedural Discrepancies in Notice Scope
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld the challenge to tax assessment under Section 73 of GST Act, finding the tax demand exceeded the scope of the show cause notice (SCN). The court set aside tax liabilities for multiple entities totaling approximately Rs. 15,63,100, determining that the tax officer's assessment went beyond the original SCN's parameters. The court also provided

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Credit Order Nullified: Insufficient Evidence Review Exposes Procedural Flaws in Supplier Invoice Verification Process
Case-Laws
GST
HC invalidated the tax order under BGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017 regarding input tax credit claims. The court found the assessing authority failed to properly evaluate evidence concerning invoices from non-existent suppliers. Specifically, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable due to lack of comprehensive material review, indicating procedura

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancelled for Persistent Non-Compliance: Statutory Obligation Upheld with Potential Reinstatement Pathway
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 for non-filing of returns for over six months. The court recognized the statutory obligation to electronically file returns and confirmed the administrative authority's power to cancel registration. However, the HC provided a remedial pathway, allowing the petitioner to po

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Proceedings Upheld: Cross-Examination Denial Does Not Invalidate Administrative Process, Statutory Appeal Pathway Confirmed
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging GST proceedings, holding that mere rejection of cross-examination request does not automatically vitiate administrative proceedings. The Court emphasized that parties cannot convert show cause notice proceedings into mini-trials and must provide specific reasons for cross-examination. The petitioner was d

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Assessments Require Separate Proceedings: Distinct Notices and Time Limits Mandated for Each Financial Year Under Sections 74(1), (2), and (10)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that under Sections 74(1), (2), and (10), each assessment year must be proceeded separately by the proper officer. The statutory time limit for issuing orders is distinct for each financial year. The court mandates independent show cause notices for different assessment years, recognizing that taxpayers can raise separa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =