Goods and Services Tax

Rejected damaged paddy not fit for human consumption, taxable; exemption denied.
Case-Laws
GST
Rejected damaged paddy is classified under HSN 1006 10 90, not 1006 10 10, as it lacks characteristics of seed quality cereal crop and is unfit for human consumption. The exemption under S.No.70 of N/N. 02/2017-Central Tax (Rate) for rice (other than pre-packaged and labelled) is inapplicable as rejected damaged paddy has lost its food quality and human consumption value, being used for indust

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Classification of Natural Fibre Composite Board: Wood or Fibreboard? Exploring Tax Implications and Rates.
Case-Laws
GST
The matter pertains to the classification and applicable GST rate for a Natural Fibre Composite board manufactured by the applicant. The board comprises natural fibre, calcium carbonate, recycling waste, processing aids, and PVC resin as a binding agent. The issue revolves around whether the product should be classified under Chapter 44 as wood and articles of woo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Naval vessel services focused on upgrades and installations don't qualify as MRO services, missing tax concessions.
Case-Laws
GST
The applicant's services related to a naval vessel do not qualify as “Maintenance, repair or overhaul services” (MRO services) under Entry 25(ib) of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 02/2021-Central Tax (rate) dated 02.06.2021. The services provided by the applicant, while related to a naval vessel, do

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Applies to Export of Pre-Packaged Frozen Shrimps; 5% Tax on Shrimps Up to 25kg, Including Exports.
Case-Laws
GST
This legal case deals with the applicability of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the export of pre-packaged and labelled frozen shrimps. The key points are: According to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and rules, if the inner packaging is printed with a pre-determined quantity, it is considered a 'pre-packaged and labelled' commodity for retail sale, regardless of whether th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Domestic supply treated as local sale; no zero-rating for unregistered non-exporter.
Case-Laws
GST
Determination of whether an outward supply of goods procured by the applicant from an Indian company undergoing liquidation can be considered a zero-rated supply under GST, allowing export without payment of tax against a Letter of Undertaking (LUT). The key points are: The place of supply is within India as the goods are delivered to the applicant's premises in India. The applicant lacks

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seized cash returned to owner due to lack of evidence about illegal source.
Case-Laws
GST
This case pertains to the release of seized cash. The cash was found at the petitioner's office premises, and due to the lack of satisfactory evidence regarding its source, it was seized by the authorities. The High Court directed the respondents to remit the seized cash amount, along with the accrued interest, to the petitioner's bank account forthwith, as the cash was kept in a fixed deposit acco

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cancellation order due to unsubstantiated fraud allegations violated natural justice; revocation rejection set aside for fair hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
Impugned show cause notice reproduced provisions of Section 29(2)(e) without specifying alleged fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts by petitioner. Cancellation order passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Instead of setting aside cancellation order, order rejecting revocation application set aside to provide opportuni

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner claims coerced tax deposit, disputes Input Tax Credit denial. Respondent denies coercion, calls deposit voluntary.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner deposited amount under alleged coercion and protest, claiming inadmissible Input Tax Credit availed. Respondent disputed coercion, stating voluntary deposit. Court observed deposits not made during raid or custody, but under alleged threat of cancellation of registration. Petitioner could have availed remedies against such threats. Court

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax Recovery Notices Annulled; Case Remanded for Fresh Order After Input Tax Credit Ruling.
Case-Laws
GST
The case pertains to recovery of arrears of tax for Assessment Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner had previously suffered Assessment Orders u/s 62 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, erroneously mentioned as Section 63. The Finance Act, 2024 introduced amendments incorporating Sections 16(5) and 16(6) in the Central Goods and S

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax assessment order quashed for violation of natural justice; case remanded with conditions.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court partly allowed the challenge to the assessment order passed by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order for violating principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. It remitted the case to the respondents to pass a fresh order, subject to conditions: the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Quashes Order Due to Lack of Participation; Remands Case for Rehearing with New Hearing Opportunity.
Case-Laws
GST
The court found that the factual position was not in dispute. The authority made assessments for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on an intelligence report. However, for the period from October 2017 to March 2018, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order after providing three opportunities to the petitioner, who did not participate in the proceedings. T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax officer issued demand notice for GST payment, court upholds his authority.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the Additional Director of GST Intelligence was competent to issue the communication demanding payment, rejecting the petitioner's contention that only an Assistant Commissioner could issue such a notice. The court relied on a circular permitting Central Tax Officers of Audit Commissionerates and Directorate General of GST to issue show-cause notices. The impugned commun

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Notice for testing fly ash bricks upheld; Raise objections & reply to show cause.
Case-Laws
GST
In a case concerning the notice issued u/s 74 of the OGST Act for testing fly ash bricks, the High Court held that since the components of fly ash bricks are under challenge, it is not inclined to interfere with the notice at this stage. The petitioner was advised to raise objections and provide a comprehensive reply to the show cause notice regarding verification of fly ash bricks and utiliz

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Overturns Dismissal Due to Procedural Errors, Emphasizes Fairness in Allowing Corrections and Clarifications.
Case-Laws
GST
Dismissal of an appeal by the appellate authority due to procedural defects, including the failure to submit a Board Resolution appointing the authorized signatory, the non-mentioning of the signatory's name, delay in filing the appeal, and incorrect mode of pre-deposit payment. The High Court held that the appellant was not given an opportunity to recti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Denies Tax Refund on Ocean Freight; Payment Utilizable as Input Tax Credit, Deeming Issue Revenue Neutral.
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioner's claim for refund of tax paid on reverse charge basis on ocean freight along with interest was rejected. The Court held that the Input Tax Credit availed by the assessee under GST Acts and rules would entitle utilization for discharging tax liability. The respondent should have examined this aspect before sanctioning the refund claim. Merely payi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Improper notice & order for ITC reversal sans reasoned adjudication; remanded for fresh consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
Principles of natural justice violated due to vague summary notice merely citing risk of excess ITC availed by petitioner on account of GSTR mismatch. Order u/s 73 of CGST Act set aside as proper officer failed to consider detailed replies with supporting documents filed by petitioner, merely stating they were unsatisfactory without application of mind. Reference to audit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner challenges tax order for lack of hearing opportunity, court remands for fresh decision after proper hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
The petition raised issues regarding the maintainability of the appeal u/s 107 of the UPGST Act, 2017, violation of Section 75(4) of the Act, and denial of opportunity for personal hearing, amounting to a violation of principles of natural justice. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without fixing any date or issuing further notice for anot

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bank account unfrozen as 1-year provisional attachment order lapses under CGST Act.
Case-Laws
GST
Pursuant to Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, the provisional attachment order dated 27.01.2022 attaching the petitioner's Bank Account No. 5318491050161006 with Yes Bank Ltd. has ceased to have effect after one year from its issuance. The High Court held that the provisional attachment has lapsed and directed the respondent bank to forthwith permit operation of the said bank account without i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Businesses granted relief to claim GST input credits despite technical lapses.
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioners failed to reflect the remittance of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in their GSTR returns due to technical reasons, and there was a lack of clear proof of payment of consideration and tax towards the inward supply. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to claim the benefit of the relevant circulars, namely, Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and Circular No. 193/05

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Lack of fair hearing before GST penalty order; distinct order for each return – HC dismissed the writ petition as misconceived.
Case-Laws
GST
The case involves a violation of the principles of natural justice. There was a failure to provide a proper opportunity for a hearing before passing an adverse order u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court observed that each monthly return filed is separate, and a distinct order can be passed for assessment or penalty, eve

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Non-compliance of mandatory Section 83(1), CGST Act leads to arbitrary provisional attachment order; reasons a must.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court held that the language of Section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is mandatory and must be followed as it has penal consequences. The impugned order u/s 83(1) should indicate the reasons that weighed with the Commissioner to form an opinion for provisional attachment to protect government revenue interests. Passing an ord

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax liability dispute: Interest levy despite credit ledger payment challenged. Court unable to examine merits due to incomplete records.
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioner contested the levy of interest, claiming tax liability was paid from the credit ledger, precluding interest charges. However, the court observed factual issues requiring detailed scrutiny of records. The petitioner failed to annex the response to the show-cause notice, hindering the court's ability to delve into merits. The

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax dispute over GSTR mismatch & excess ITC claims; HC remands case for fresh review after 10% disputed tax paid.
Case-Laws
GST
The petitioner challenged the order and summary order alleging discrepancies between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and excess availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner agreed to pay 10% of the disputed tax to file reply/objections with supporting documents. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax credit denial overruled: Manpower services eligible for ITC as per GST circular.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner challenged denial of input tax credit (ITC) on manpower supply services received during 2017-18 to 2022-23, citing Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST. Court held petitioner entitled to ITC and cannot be deprived or liable for interest due to belated claim, as per circular. Circular supports petitioner's claim, binding on respondents as per KP Varghese judgment. However, as circular iss

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax return discrepancy: Court orders fresh hearing after paying 10% disputed amount as security.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondent authority to pass a fresh order. This was subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 10% of the disputed tax amount within 30 days as security. The case pertained to discrepancies between the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had already paid ta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =