Goods and Services Tax

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner on refund of tax credit for Spunbonded Polypropylene Bed Sheets under GST.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered denial of refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit due to inverted duty structure for Spunbonded Polypropylene Bed Sheets under GST. The Court found that the revenue authority failed to adequately prove the classification of the product under a specific tariff heading. It emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the taxing autho

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Allows Business to Resume After Setting Aside Revocation Due to Late Appeal Under CGST Act Section 107.
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the appeal u/s 107 of CGST Act due to late filing. Petitioner's registration was cancelled for not furnishing returns u/s 39. Respondents claimed non-compliance, but no tax evasion. HC noted suspending license harms revenue. Petitioner filed returns promptly post show cause. Orders rejecting revocation set aside. Petition disposed off, allowing petitio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Adjudication order set aside due to discrepancy in ITC claims. Circular applies for 2017-18. Matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered the validity of an adjudication order regarding discrepancies in Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The Court noted the discrepancy and referenced Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST applicable to the financial year 2017-18. The Court found the Circular relevant to the case and set aside the adjudi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court quashes assessment order due to disparity in GST returns. Petitioner agrees to pay 10% of disputed tax demand for remand.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered a challenge to an assessment order based on disparity between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and the supplier's GSTR 1 return. The petitioner's explanation for the disparity was noted, attributing it to the supplier's error in reporting turnover. The court found the petitioner negligent for not uploading the reply and no

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Orders Reassessment of Supply Valuation in Job Work Case Under WBGST/CGST Act 2017, Section 107.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed the issue of determining the value of supply in a job work scenario, challenging an order u/s 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner received goods for job work from outside the state, but faced interception and detention while returning the consignment after completion. The Court noted that if the value of supply cannot be determine

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bagheri Unit claimed budgetary support not Baga Unit. Order set aside for fresh decision. Petition remanded for personal hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed a case where Budgetary support was claimed by Bagheri Unit, not Baga Unit. The court found that the petitioner's plea for full budgetary support for Bagheri Unit was not considered. Orders by the 4th respondent and Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the 4th respondent for fresh decisio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Denial of GST refund due to improper application filing. Court cites relevant rules for manual applications. Petitioner's case remanded for fresh review.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court declined to consider refund applications u/s 54 (3) of GST for FY 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 due to non-filing of RFD-01 forms as petitioner was unregistered. Citing precedent from Bombay and Gujarat High Courts, assessing authority must consider Rule 97A allowing manual applications. Petitioner, thou

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's GST reg. cancelled due to non-functional premises. Violation of rules found, reg. restored retrospectively.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court ruled on the cancellation of GST registration due to non-functional business premises. The court found violations of Rule 25 of CGST Rules as physical verification was not done in the presence of concerned persons. The State Tax Officer had admitted the existence of the petitioner's unit prior to issuing a show cause notice for cancellatio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pet. to pay Rs.10,00,000/- by 15.04.2024 for interest liability. Installments for balance due. Bank attachment withdrawn.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed the validity of a bank attachment notice for overdue interest and tax liabilities. The petitioner discharged the tax liability belatedly, leading to interest liability. The court acknowledged the petitioner's payment towards interest and tax liabilities. It directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,00,000 by 15.04.2024 towards outsta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's GST registration cancellation challenged: Lack of access to portal & computer skills. Assessment order quashed, 10% tax remittance required.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered the validity of an assessment order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner lacked access to the GST portal and was unfamiliar with computer resources. The Court noted the cancellation of registration and that the petitioner was not heard despite being offered a personal hear

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cancellation of GST registration due to non-payment of interest can be revoked under section 30. Payment of Rs.6,19,258.85 required.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court allowed the petition seeking revocation of registration cancellation u/s 30 of the GST Act. The Court recognized the serious consequences of cancellation on the petitioner's business and emphasized the Act's objective of tax collection. The petitioner was permitted to apply u/s 30 upon payment of Rs. 6,19,258.85 and other penal

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Uttarakhand Peyjal Nigam Not a Local Authority Under GST; Exempt from Tax for Water Tank Construction, No ITC Claim.
Case-Laws
GST
In this case, the Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) addressed the issue of whether Uttarakhand Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam (UK Peyjal Nigam) qualifies as a Local Authority u/s 2(69) of the GST Act. The AAR determined that UK Peyjal Nigam does not meet the criteria of a Local Authority as it does not have control over a municipal or local fund entru

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's appeal accepted despite delay in filing. Court orders remittance to Appellate Commissioner.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court restored the petitioner's appeal due to a delay in filing. The appeal was filed before the second respondent, 14 days after the limitation expired. The court held that despite the marginal delay, the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Commissioner for disposal on merits and in accordance with the law, with the cond

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner's refund claim rejected due to discrepancies in filings. Court seeks reasons for denial. Case sent for re-consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dealt with a case involving the rejection of a refund claim due to discrepancies between the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B return. The Court found that no reasons were given for determining that the claim did not meet the requirements of u/s 77. Additionally, the Court noted that although it was concluded that there

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court allows trust to appeal under GST Act Section 107 within 30 days with 10% tax deposit requirement.
Case-Laws
GST
In a case before the High Court, the issue was the correctness of an order that was issued in the wrong name but with the correct GSTIN of the petitioner, Srinivasan Charitable and Educational Trust. The Court held that the petitioner can file a statutory appeal u/s 107 of the GST Act within 30 days, upon depositing 10% of the disputed tax. The Appellate Commissione

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner gets another chance to challenge tax demands. Must pay 10% of disputed tax within 2 weeks. Notification No.11/2027 relied on.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed a challenge to assessment orders where the petitioner lacked a reasonable opportunity to contest tax demands due to discrepancies in returns. The petitioner did not respond to a show cause notice. The court found that the petitioner relied on a notification for GST exemption. The impugned orders were set aside wit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petitioner unable to participate in proceedings due to cancer. Order set aside for reconsideration with condition to remit 10% of disputed tax demand.
Case-Laws
GST
In a High Court case, the petitioner challenged an order due to inability to respond to show cause notice or participate in proceedings because of cancer diagnosis. Discrepancy in GSTR 3B returns and auto-populated GSTR 2A noted. Court found tax proposal confirmed as petitioner didn't respond or attend hearing. Court held ju

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advance Ruling Authority says UKPSVEN is not 'local authority' but 'governmental authority'. Construction service for water supply is tax exempt.
Case-Laws
GST
The case concerned the classification of UKPSVEN as a local authority u/s CGST Act. The AAR ruled that UKPSVEN does not qualify as a local authority as it lacks control over a municipal fund. It was established as a governmental authority u/s UPWSS Act, making it eligible for exemption u/s Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax. UK

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Principles of natural justice: Court says assessee deserve a fair hearing. Order set aside for fresh consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court considered the liability of the petitioner u/s 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax / Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was found that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court held that the order for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 should be s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty imposed for wrongly availing Input Tax Credit but not utilized is unsustainable. Unjustified penalty waived, token penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court examined the legality of penalty imposition u/s 74(1) and 74(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 for wrongly availed but unutilized Input Tax Credit. The petitioner reversed the amount post show cause notice issuance. Relying on a similar case, it was held that penalties u/s 73(1) and 74(1) apply only if the credit is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Challenge to denial of input tax credit rejected. Appellant must prove movement of goods to establish genuineness. Opportunity granted for verification.
Case-Laws
GST
HC rejected challenge to adjudication order denying ITC. Appellant, purchaser, argued valid tax invoice and taxes paid; if supplier's registration cancelled, ITC denial unfair. Appellant must prove goods movement for transaction genuineness. If proven, authority to verify supplier. Without proof, liability remains. Appella

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Violation of privacy & human rights – guidelines for issuing summons clarified. Proceeding closed with direction to follow guidelines
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court addressed the issue of violation of Right to Privacy and Human Rights in the context of guidelines for issuing summons. It emphasized the need for precautions when issuing summons. The Court directed GST officers to adhere to guidelines from the Commissioner (GST-Investigation) and CBIC when summoning individuals u/s 70 of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs must refund IGST for goods exported. Failure to process claim is unjust. Respondents must act promptly. Petition granted.
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that u/s 54 of CGST Act, 2017, failure to process IGST refund claim for goods exported is impermissible. Shipping Bill serves as refund application. Proper officer must issue order within 60 days of complete application. Circulars fix responsibility on officers and agents, not exporters. Refund must be allowed or rejected with reasons. R

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund claim denied for GST assessment at 18% instead of 5% by KG Foundation. Recipient not paid the GST, petition dismissed.
Case-Laws
GST
The High Court dismissed a petition regarding a refund claim made by the recipient of services supplied by KG Foundation. The court held that GST is imposed on construction services on a forward charge basis on the service provider, in this case, KG Foundation. The court accepted the contention that the services were provided by KG Foundation and no

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC: Levy of tax, interest, and penalty on CMWSSB for supplying purified water. Order remanded for reconsideration.
Case-Laws
GST
HC considered levy of tax, interest, and penalty on CMWSSB for supplying purified water. HC found issues with adjudication: 1) Misinterpretation of purified water supply, not exempt; 2) Lack of details on supply values through different means. HC remanded the matter for reconsideration, requiring petitioner to remit Rs. 3 crores within six weeks. Petition disp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =