Goods and Services Tax

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

= = = = = = = =

Denial of input tax credit during transition to permanent registration needs reconsideration for lack of reasoning.
Case-Laws
GST
The court held that the denial of input tax credit to the petitioner by the respondent authority requires reconsideration. The respondent failed to consider the petitioner's contention that the payments for which input tax credit was sought were made against the provisional registration number before the permanent registration number was granted. There were n

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Frequently Asked Questions on IMS
GST
Dated:- 23-9-2024

With the Introduction of Invoice Management System (IMS), the taxpayers interaction with invoices and business processes will change. This innovative feature empowers taxpayers to seamlessly accept, reject, or keep invoices pending in the system to avail later as and when required, streamlining the reconciliation process, and ensuring greater accuracy and efficiency in GST compliance. Frequently asked questions (FAQs) on IMS to get a better understanding of the new functionality.
Thanks,
Team GSTN
Frequently Asked Questions: Invoice Management System (IMS)
Sr No.
Question
Reply
1.
What is Invoice Management System (IMS)?
Invoice Management System (IMS) is a facility in GST system, where the invoices/records saved/filed by the supplier in GSTR-1/1A/IFF, can be accepted, rejected or kept pending by recipients in order to correctly avail ITC.
2
How can I access IMS?
IMS can be accessed using below p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

pending record and the invoices/records belongs to future tax period shall remain in IMS.
6
When will the documents be flown to IMS?
The documents will be available in IMS as soon as they are saved by the supplier in their corresponding GSTR-1/1A/IFF.
7
When can the recipient taxpayer take action on a record?
As soon as a supplier/ taxpayer saves an Invoice/ records in GSTR-1/1A/IFF, it is shown and is available to the recipient taxpayer in IMS for taking actions.
8
What all documents will not be made available in IMS but will be part of GSTR-2B?
Below records will not be part of IMS but will directly flow to GSTR-2B:
* Document flowing from the following forms:
* GSTR 5
* GSTR 6
* ICEGATE documents
* RCM records
* Document where ITC is ineligible due to:
* POS rules
* Section 16(4) of CGST Act
* Documents where ITC to be reversed on account of Rule 37A
9.
Who will have access to IMS functionality?
Taxpayers registered as normal taxpayers (incl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s also been filed
12
Can I take actions multiple time on a document?
Yes, action can be taken multiple times on an invoice/record before filling of GSTR 3B. In case of multiple actions on a record, latest action will overwrite the previous action. However, the action taken will be frozen at the time of filing the corresponding GSTR-3B by the recipient.
13
What happens to the original record if the same record is amended by the supplier?
If original and amended record belongs to 2 different GSTR 2B return period, then it is mandatory to take action on original record and file the respective GSTR 3B before taking action on amended record (amended through GSTR-1/1A/IFF). In case if recipient take the action on amended record first then system will not allow to save the action in IMS.
In case both the original records and amended records belong to same period GSTR-2B, the action taken on amended records will prevail over the action taken on original record.
14
What will h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r the cut-off dated of GSTR-2B. Saved records unless filed will be considered as “no action” committed and thus will flow as the status of the record that existed before saving for GSTR-2B generation.
16
What If I have taken an action on a document in saved status but the same is edited/changed by the supplier before filing his GSTR-1?
In case a saved record is edited before filing of GSTR-1 by the supplier, the amended record will replace the saved document in IMS and the action taken on such record by the recipient will be reset. Thus, the edited record will be available for recipient for fresh action in IMS.
Similarly, if a document is deleted before filing of GSTR-1/1A/IFF by supplier then such document will be removed from IMS also.
17
Will Reverse Charge document received from registered suppliers also form part of IMS ?
No, RCM invoices are not part of IMS but will continue
to be part of GSTR-2B as it is being reflected today.
18
As a taxpayer what all will I

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ill be made available in the IMS for action by the recipient.
20
What will happen to the documents in IMS on filing of GSTR 3B by recipient?
All the accepted/rejected records belonging to a particular GSTR-2B period will be removed from IMS on filing of GSTR-3B for that particular period.
21
What will happen to the documents kept pending in IMS?
Pending records will continue to be in IMS till the time of cut-off date as per section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017.
Once records crossed the timeline prescribed in section 16(4) of CGST Act, it will be removed from IMS.
22
Can I download all the data available in IMS?
Yes, excel download facility is available to download the IMS data .
23
What is draft GSTR 2B?
GSTR-2B will continue to be generated on 14th of every month with the same logic as current GSTR-2B which will now be considered as draft GSTR 2B. This draft will consist of all the accepted / deemed accepted records and rejected records. Here, rejected records are

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ly taxpayers, GSTR-2B will not be generated for the months M1 and M2 of the quarter. However, GSTR-2BQ for the quarter (M1, M2 and M3 combined) will be generated on 14th of Q+1 month and re-computation of 2B will be allowed on or after 14th of Q+1 month till filing of corresponding GSTR-3B. The same logic as is there for monthly GSTR-2B / 3B will be applicable.
28
What will happen to GSTR- 2A?
GSTR-2A shall continue to be generated as it is.
29
Is it mandatory to re- compute GSTR 2B?
If there is any change made by recipient on IMS dashboard after draft GSTR 2B generation by system, it is mandatory to re-compute GSTR 2B
30
How to take an action on records available on IMS dashboard
* Action on Individual record: To take action on individual record, recipient can select the action by clicking on the radio button available at line-item level and then click on save button to save the action taken.
* Action on multiple records: To take action on multiple records in one g

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

mpute GSTR 2B at the time of filing gstr 3B and take corresponding ITC in the GSTR 3B for Oct'24.
32
Can a supplier amend FCM invoice to RCM invoice and what will the impact on the ITC?
Yes, the supplier can amend an Invoice from FCM to RCM subject to the time limit as per GST law.
The system shall reduce the ITC of the amended FCM Invoice in case the said invoice was accepted by the recipient.
Further, the RCM invoice shall flow to GSTR 2B of the recipient.
33
Can the place of supply be changed by the supplier in the GSTR 1 and what will be the impact on the ITC?
Yes, place of supply can be changed by the supplier in the GSTR 1 subject to the time limit given in the GST law.
Further if the ITC become ineligible due to change in place of supply, then recipient should reverse the ITC in the Table 4B1.
34
What will happen if the recipient rejects the original Credit Note or upward amended Credit Note?
If the recipient rejects the Credit note and furnished the GSTR

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

+ Full Amount
– Delta
Nil
Reject
Nil
Pending
Pending
Nil
Accept
+ Full Amount
– Delta
Nil
Reject
Nil
Pending
CN
Accept
– Full Amount
– Full Amount
Nil
Reject
Nil
+ Full Amount
Pending
Not Allowed
CNA
Upward
Accept
– Full Amount
Accept
– Delta
– Delta
Nil
Reject
Nil
+ Delta
Pending
NA
NA
Reject
Nil
Accept
– Full Amount
– Full Amount
Nil
Reject
Nil
+ Full Amount
Pending
NA
NA
Pending
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
CNA
Downward
Accept
– Full Amount
Accept
+ Delta
+ Delta
Nil
Reject
Nil
Pending
Nil
Reject
Nil
Accept
– Full Amount
Nil
Pending
NA
Not Allowed
Pending
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
RCM to Forward charge
RCM to FCM –
Inv/DN
Accept
+ Full Amount
+ Full Amount
Nil
Reject
Nil
Pending
Nil
RCM to FCM – CN
Accept
– Full Amount
– Full Amount
Nil
Reject
Nil
+ Full Amount
Pending
Not allowed
Not Allowed
FCM

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bail Denied in Forgery Case: Court Emphasizes Severity of Economic Crimes and Accused's Avoidance of Legal Proceedings.
Case-Laws
GST
This case deals with the issue of granting bail in a case involving forgery, creation of fake GST firms, and related economic offenses. The key points are: The court held that the present case is one of forgery and not related to GST, hence the accused cannot claim the benefit of bail granted in other GST cases. The court analyzed the concepts of inquiry, investigation, and trial under the Criminal Procedure Code, concluding that the arguments raised by the accused regarding jurisdiction have no merit. The court examined the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals wi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Dismisses Jurisdictional Challenge to GST Show Cause Notice; State Officer's Authority Upheld for Interstate Dealings.
Case-Laws
GST
The Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the show cause notice (SCN) issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act on jurisdictional grounds. The petitioner failed to submit a reply to the SCN, which emanated from a GST audit report after examining records for specific periods. The objection regarding the officer's lack of jurisdiction over the petitioner's

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Overturns Decision on Business Location; Orders Review of Evidence and Response to Show Cause Notice.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the respondents' conclusion of the petitioner's principal place of business being non-existent at the time of physical verification was ex facie erroneous. The conclusion was based solely on purported enquiries from nearby shop owners, without mentioning their names or details in the Field Report. Cancelling a taxpayer's registration solely o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =