Goods and Services Tax

Intra-state Tax Liability: Onus on JV to Prove Work Ratio.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that since the nature of supply was intra-state in respective states, the tax liability shall be discharged individually in each state equivalent to the work executed there. As the petitioner joint venture (JV) failed to produce the inter se agreement or evidence regarding the proportion of work executed by each partner in the respective states, the court could not determine the tax liability. T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Flavoured Milk Classified Under Milk Products for GST; Exempt from Penalties, Petition Allowed.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that flavoured milk is to be classified under GST Tariff Heading 0402 and not 2202. The entry 0402 covers milk and milk products, including milk containing added sugar or sweetening matter. Although flavoured milk contains 0.5% Badam flavour, it cannot be excluded from Heading 0402 merely due to the addition of flavour. The principle of noscitur a sociis indi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Arbitrary tax demand quashed; Taxpayer relief on limitations upheld.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court allowed the writ petition by quashing the appellate order dated June 28, 2024, due to procedural irregularities and arbitrary actions in the demand of tax, interest, and penalties u/ss 16(2)(c) and 73 of the GST Act. The Court held that provisions on limitation should be interpreted liberally where genuine hardships are demonstrated, considering judicial precedents supporting such relief. T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's GST registration restored after court intervention; CGST/WBGST to open portal for tax payment.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders cancelling the petitioner's registration. The court directed the respondent CGST/WBGST authority to restore the petitioner's registration, open the portal for 45 days to enable the petitioner to make payment of revenue due, including penalty, within 15 working days as indicated by the r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Upholds GST Registration Cancellation Due to Late Appeal and Non-Compliance with Filing Requirements.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of appeal against cancellation of GST registration for non-compliance with GST REG 2017. The petitioner failed to furnish returns u/s 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. The show cause notice was issued on 15.01.2023, and the GST registration was cancelled vide order dated 15.01.2023. However, the petitioner filed

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Orders Decision on Tax Ruling for Land and Building Sale in 90 Days Despite Pre-Show Cause Notice.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale of land and buildings, based on the subsequent issuance of a pre-show cause notice dated 22 October 2024 by respondent No. 2 u/s 73(5) read with Rule 142(1-A) of the State Goods and Services Tax Act. The

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax evasion case: 100% penalty set aside, deposit Rs 25 lakh ordered for ITC discrepancies.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court set aside the impugned assessment orders imposing a 100% penalty u/s 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for excess claims of Input Tax Credit and short payment of tax due to discrepancies in sale invoices and turnover reported. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 11,36,408/- already paid

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tribunal allows refund of pre-GST taxes paid despite unfulfilled export obligation.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee to claim refund of Rs. 3,28,75,733/- towards Central Value Added Tax credit, Customs Duty, and Special Additional Duty paid after the appointed day under the CGST Act. The Tribunal rightly relied on Section 142(3) of the CGST Act to entertain the refund claim for amounts paid under the existing law pri

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Multinational firm denied High Court intervention, directed to exhaust statutory appeals against tax authority's order.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court declined to entertain the petition challenging the Order-in-Original issued by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Pune. The Court held that no case was made out to deviate from the usual practice of requiring the party to exhaust the alternate statutory appeals available. Regarding the requirement of pre-deposit, the Cou

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax credit blocked by authorities, High Court intervenes. Petitioner to deposit 25% tax, submit objections within 4 weeks.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2023 which had blocked the input tax credit availed by the Petitioner based on invoices raised by their Supplier u/s 17(5). The Petitioner agreed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. The impugned order shall be treated as a show cause notice, and the Petitioner shall submit object

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Impugned tax order set aside for lack of due process; ITC case involving alleged bogus invoices reopened for petitioner's objections.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 for violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of show cause notices and assessment order. The case involved availment of input tax credit on alleged supplies from bill traders based on bogus invoices without actual goods involvement. Considering the petitioner h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Flawed tax demand notice quashed; authorities can restart process afresh.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the Summary of Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing tax determination cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice as mandated u/s 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. The impugned order was passed without issuing a proper Show Cause Notice, violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) which requires granting an opportunity of hearing when request

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Failure to amend invoice & e-way bill leads to 200% GST penalty for discrepancies.
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioner failed to amend the invoice and e-way bill to reflect the actual goods loaded on the vehicle, resulting in discrepancies in GST documentation. The High Court upheld the levy of penalty u/s 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017, amounting to 200% of the tax payable, due to the irregularity committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was unable to substantiate their case with records be

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition Dismissed: Failure to Exhaust Remedies and Unjustified Delay in Filing Under Article 226.
Case-Laws
GST
The petition was dismissed by the High Court as no case was made out to depart from the usual rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies. The key reasons were: 1) An alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order, although the petitioner contended violation of principles of natural justice. 2) The petition was filed almost a year after the impugned orde

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anticipatory Bail Upheld in Rs. 7 Crore Misappropriation Case Despite Grave Allegations.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed the petitions seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were alleged to have misappropriated over Rs. 7 crores by misusing credentials and withdrawing funds from accounts, instead of paying statutory dues. Despite the grave allegations of economic offenses u/ss 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the court held that the of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =