Goods and Services Tax

Order upholding quashing of penalty for goods transport upheld. Seizure allowed only if documents not genuine under Act. Documents genuine.
Case-Laws
GST
Impugned order quashing levy of penalty for transportation of goods upheld. Power of detention or seizure can only be exercised when goods lack genuine documents under Act. Genuineness of documents not disputed. Allegation that prescribed documents not produced unsupported. Once accompanying documents found genuine, goods should not ha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner can file representation to Additional Chief Secretary on tax liability for govt contracts pre/post GST within 4 weeks. Decision in 4 months.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner granted liberty to file representation before Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department within four weeks regarding respondent's authority to bear additional tax liability for government contracts awarded pre or post GST regime without incorporating applicable GST in Schedule of Rates while preparing Bill of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Expats' service tax on salaries & perks under manpower supply agency: Petitioners get time till 15.01.2024 to respond. No coercive recovery if adverse order.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioners granted time until 15.01.2024 to file comprehensive response regarding levy of service tax on salaries and perquisites of expats under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. Respondents to take decision after receiving response. No coercive steps for recovery of amount in case of adverse order agai

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Power Company Must Pay GST on Coal Movement Fees; No Exemption for Forestry-Related Activities.
Case-Laws
GST
The Abhivahan Shulk collected by the Chhattisgarh Forest Department from the appellant in lieu of granting permission for coal movement is not eligible for Nil rate of GST under SI. No. 4 & 5 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as it is neither related to “Urban forestry, protection of environment and ecological aspect” nor “Social forestry or farm forestry.” The appe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court dismissed challenge to 100% penalty order u/s 74 GST law. Limited scope under Art 226. No relief. Raise grievances via appellate remedy.
Case-Laws
GST
Challenge to assessment order levying 100% penalty was dismissed by High Court. Court held that impugned orders u/s 74 of GST enactments do not warrant interference under Article 226 due to limited scope. No extenuating reasons to extend relief to petitioner. Petitioner can raise grievances before Appellate Authority under GST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax liability of legal rep under CGST Act questioned. Court quashed order, remitted case for fresh hearing allowing petitioner to defend.
Case-Laws
GST
Legal representative potentially liable for tax u/s 93 of CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner claimed non-liability as business not taken over from late father. Court quashed order, remitted case for fresh decision after giving petitioner opportunity to defend tax liability as legal representative/heir in accordance with law. Similar petition ear

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Notices/endorsements issued to non-existent entity quashed. Respondents free to pursue proceedings against appropriate entity as per law.
Case-Laws
GST
Notices/endorsement in Form GST DRC-01 issued to a non-existent entity set aside. Proceedings initiated through show cause notices/endorsement quashed. Respondents at liberty to pursue proceedings against appropriate entity regarding subject matter as per law. Petitions disposed of on premise that no proceedings could be initiated agains

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

EOU entitled to IGST refund u/r 89 on exports, not u/r 96. Procedural lapses can't deny legitimate export incentives. Order set aside.
Case-Laws
GST
100% EOU wrongly claimed refund u/r 96 instead of Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 on IGST paid on inputs/capital goods utilized for exports. HC held EOU entitled to exemption u/r 89 as exports made and refund claims based on shipping bills. Procedural irregularity should not obstruct legitimate export incentives. Impugned order set aside, matte

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Navaratan Oil, Ayurvedic Creams Classified as Drugs; Boroplus Antiseptic as Cosmetic; Sonachandi Chavanprash Not a Drug.
Case-Laws
GST
Navaratan Oil, Gold Turmeric Ayurvedic Cream, and Nirog Dant Power Lal were classified as drugs under Entry 37 of the CGST Act and TGST Act, while Boroplus Antiseptic Cream, Boroplus Prickly Heat Powder, and Sonachandi Chavanprash were classified as cosmetics under Entry 36. The HC held that Sonachandi Chavanprash, being edible, cannot be classified as a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax demand quashed due to lack of natural justice. Petitioner to remit 10% tax within 2 weeks for reconsideration.
Case-Laws
GST
Violation of principles of natural justice – petitioner unable to contest tax demand as consultant failed to inform about proceedings – examining impugned order, tax proposal confirmed due to non-reply to show cause notice – proposal related to comparison between inward supply from GSTR 2A and outward supply – petitioner opted for composition levy, filed GSTR

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund application dismissed. Option to pay or contest seizure. Chose payment, skipping adjudication. Delayed 7 years after release.
Case-Laws
GST
Maintainability of appeal against order under CGST/SGST Act adjudication on refund application dismissed. Appellant had option to pay amounts demanded or contest seizure and insist on adjudication order. Appellant chose payment, leading to release order without tax/penalty determination. If payment was mistake, appellant should have sought re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Overturns ITC Denial; Petitioner Allowed to Submit More Evidence Under GST Section 17(5.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner challenged ineligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on certain commodities as per Section 17(5) of GST statutes and ITC on supplies from cancelled dealers. Petitioner submitted invoices, e-way bills, and supplier's returns proving payment of tax. Impugned order lacked findings on first issue, confirmed tax proposal on second issue citing lack of lorry receipts, we

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund of tax paid on Inward supply of goods by Canteen Store Department (FORM GST RFD 10A)
GST
Dated:- 22-7-2024

1. In reference to Circular No. 227/21/2024-GST issued by GST policy wing, CBIC on 11th July, 2024 for online processing of refund applications filed by Canteen Stores Department (CSD), GSTN has developed an online functionality to enable CSDs to file an application for refund in FORM GST RFD-10A in GST common portal.
2. The pre-requisites & relevant date for filing refund application under this category are mentioned in Para 4, 5 & 6 of the said Circular. The applicants are advised to refer the same for details in this regard.
3. The process to be followed for filing refund application under the said category is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r any previous periods.
Example:
A CSD wants to file two refunds for the periods Jan 2024 to March 2024 and July 2024 to September 2024. In GST system, the CSD has to file the first refund by selecting the period Jan 2024 to March 2024. When the CSD tries to file the second refund claim for the period July 2024 to September 2024, the GST portal will prompt the user to file refund for the period April 2024 – June 2024.If there is no refund claim for the period April 2024 – June 2024, then NIL refund claim has to be filed for the said period. Post that, the GST portal will allow the CSD to file refund for the period July 2024 to September 2024.
e. In the GST portal, the Select Period is available from July 2017. If a taxpayer has alread

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d for the same period again in the GST system.
f. The details of invoices for which refund is to be claimed shall be uploaded in the Statement. After successful validation of the statement, click on Proceed button.
g. The total tax paid on Inward supply of goods will be auto-populated. Enter the value of IGST, CGST and SGST in "Total Refund applied for" table.
h. While filing refund application, the applicant has to Select the "Bank Account number" in which the refund is to be disbursed.
i. Before submitting the refund application, the applicant can Save & Preview the refund application. If any correction/addition or rectification is to be done in the refund application, it can be done only before submission. Onc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delay in filing appeal rejected, mismatch in GSTR returns. HC directs appellate authority to consider appeal on merits if re-presented within 10 days.
Case-Laws
GST
Court considered condonation of delay in filing appeal, mismatch between petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns. Held appeal was rejected as filed 29 days beyond condonable period u/s 107 of GST statutes. Petitioner stated inability to file appeal timely due to order being uploaded on portal, known on specific date. Conside

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's refund amount error excused due to portal glitch. Respondents ordered to pay interest on delayed refunds.
Case-Laws
GST
Petitioner made mistake in not showing correct refund amount in GSTR-3B for July and August 2017. Delay not attributable to petitioner as respondents admitted technical glitch in portal processing refund which vanished after HC directions. Assessee cannot be deprived of justifiable money. Respondents to pay interest at 6% p.a. from July 1, 2018 till Septem

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Rules GST Registration Cancellation Must Be Reasoned, Effective from Notice Date, Not Retrospectively, u/s 29(2) CGST Act.
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration due to failure to file returns timely – impugned order does not set out any reason except referring to impugned show cause notice (SCN) – violation of principles of natural justice – Although Proper Officer has power to cancel GST registration from deemed fit date u/s 29(2) of CGST Act, such powers c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction can't exclude time for appeal filing. Reagitating decided issues is abuse of process & relitigation.
Case-Laws
GST
Invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction – petitioner not entitled to exclusion of time taken in writ proceedings from limitation period for filing appeal. Abuse of process of Court – reagitating issue already decided amounts to abuse, relitigation contrary to justice and public policy. Writ petition dismissed as petitioner cannot seek c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Denied for Demo Vehicles Used as Business Assets, Not for Resale, Under GST Act Provisions.
Case-Laws
GST
Inward supply of motor vehicles used for demonstration purposes in the course of business of supplying motor vehicles cannot be availed as input tax credit on capital goods. Motor vehicles supplied for demo purpose are treated as a different category compared to those supplied for sales, and are capitalized by the dealership as per customary business practices. The

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Works supervised by applicant, material/installation cost by recipient. Applicant charges supervision fees only. GST payable on supervision charges.
Case-Laws
GST
The determination is that where the value of materials and cost of execution work for installation of lines are borne by the recipient of service, and the applicant charges only supervision fees, the value of materials and cost of installation shall not be included in the value of supply for determination of taxable value unde

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Non-edible neem oil falls under HSN 1515 90 20, not fertilizers. Remains neem oil despite chemical modification. No ITC refund allowed.
Case-Laws
GST
HSN code for non-edible neem oil is 1515 90 20, classified under Chapter 15, not Chapter 31 as fertilizer. The product remains neem oil in essential character despite chemical modification by adding solvents to reduce Azadirachtin content. As per Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax (Rate), no refund of unutilized input tax credit is allow

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Voucher Sales Classified as Goods Supply, Taxed at 18% Under CGST and UPGST for Title Transfer Transactions.
Case-Laws
GST
The applicant purchases vouchers by paying consideration to the issuer and sells them to clients for consideration. The vouchers have value and ownership transferrable from issuer to applicant and then to ultimate beneficiary. No service element exists between issuer and applicant or applicant and purchaser. Vouchers qualify as movable property and goods. Actionable

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods detained on mere suspicion of tax evasion despite proper docs. Court: Authorities failed to prove intent (mens ria). Orders quashed.
Case-Laws
GST
Goods were detained based on assumptions that they were not on normal route and driver had mobile number of dealer in different district, despite accompanying documents being proper. Court held that authorities failed to establish intention to evade tax payment (mens ria). Since mens ria was absent, orders detaining goods were quashed.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC allows small biz to upload ITC certificate by condoning 2-day delay due to COVID-19 u/r 40(1)(b) after approval of composition scheme withdrawal.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner, a small businessman, to upload the input tax credit certificate in the web portal by condoning the delay of 2 days in filing Form GST ITC-01 within the stipulated 30 days. The delay occurred due to the COVID-19 period, and the petitioner's application for withdra

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Plea to quash show-cause notice citing Rule 142 violation dismissed. Notices detailed tax liabilities, no breach of natural justice.
Case-Laws
GST
Summary in relevant legal terminology: Petitioner's plea to quash show-cause notice and corrigendum citing non-compliance with Rule 142 of GST Rules, 2017 was dismissed. Court observed that the notices clearly detailed tax liabilities, enabling petitioner to effectively contest facts. No violation of principles of natural justice occurred. Pe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's Writ Dismissed for Not Filing Objections Against Provisional Attachment Orders u/r 159(5) and Section 83.
Case-Laws
GST
Provisional orders of attachment issued u/s 83 can be challenged by filing objection u/r 159(5). Petitioner did not file objection. Respondents issued fresh provisional attachment orders as notices u/s 74 could not be served on petitioner, who prima facie avoided service. Provisional attachment orders, though drastic, are permissible to protect revenue int

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =