Goods were detained & notice was issued u/s.129 of CGST Act. Assessee paid the penalty to secure release of the goods. Officer did not pass the order in Form GST MOV-09. Assessee filed a writ petition seeking passing of the order. Held: Upon payment of the penalty, all the proceedings stand concluded u/s.129(5) of the […]
GST was paid but later clarified as not payable by a beneficial circular. In Messrs Aculife Health Care (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India (R/Special Civil Application No. 17800 of 2023), the Hon’ble Gujarat HC held that the limitation for filing a refund claim would be two years from the date of the circular. Against […]
[dated 05.02.2025, in Cotton Corporation of India vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC), from W.P. no. 1463 of 2025] A ‘month’ does not refer to a period of thirty days, but refers to the actual period of a calendar month. Therefore when the period prescribed is three months (as contrasted from 90 days) from a […]
[dated 04.02.2025, in Brand Protection Services (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, from Civil writ jurisdiction case no. 14957 of 2024] According to Section 107 of the CGST Act, an appeal should be filed within three months from the date on which the aggrieved decision or order is communicated. The date on which the order […]
[dated 06.01.2025, in Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham vs. Authority, from WP(MD) No. 26481 and others of 2024] The Hon’ble Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has held that Section 169 of the CGST Act mandates a notice in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively. On a failure or impracticability of adopting […]
[dated 07.11.2024, in OSEL Devices Ltd. vs. Assistant Enforcement Officer, from WP(C) No. 33720 of 2024] Goods were intercepted while in transit for the sole defect that e-invoice was not generated. Therefore, penalty was imposed under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act. The Hon’ble Court held the aforesaid discrepancy to be minor in nature. It […]
The following documents may help determine the nature and use of the immovable property: (i) property tax demand notice; (ii) electricity bill; and (iii) agreement between the parties. Also, the reverse charge liability on commercial property (as laid in the table above) was introduced from 10.10.2024. Hence, registered persons may wonder whether tax is liable […]
[dated 03.04.2024, in K-9 Enterprises v. State of Karnataka, from Writ Appeal nos. 100425, 100426, 100427, 100428, 100429 and 100430 OF 2023 (T-Res)] The petitioner’s electronic credit ledger was blocked based on a field visit report, which indicated that suppliers were non-existent. This was challenged but the learned Single Judge rejected the petitioner’s contentions. In […]
[dated 17.09.2024, in Nivriya India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, from WPA 14380 of 2024] While filling GSTR-1, the petitioner had inadvertently marked certain supplies as “without payment of IGST” instead of “with payment of IGST”. However, Form GSTR-3B was filed correctly, viz., with payment of IGST. Accordingly, refund was rejected. It […]
[dated 02.09.2024, in Adabala Naryana Rao v. Union of India, from D.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 13552 of 2024] The petitioner’s bank account was provisionally attached under section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 vide Form GST DRC-22. According to rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, any person whose property is attached may file […]
[dated 12.08.2024, in Aatral Associates v. State Tax Officer, from W.P. no. 21544 of 2024] Demand was confirmed against the petitioner for both tax and penalty. Petitioner accepted and paid the tax portion. However, he filed an appeal against the penalty. Appellate authority rejected the appeal, citing that penalty alone cannot be challenged when tax demand […]
[dated 14.08.2024, in Anil Rice Mill v. State of U.P., from Writ Tax no. 886 of 2023] The petitioner claimed input tax credit (ITC) on purchase of certain commodities on the basis of tax invoices and e-way bills. The department alleged that such ITC was availed based on forged tax invoices without physical movement of […]
[dated 04.07.2024, in V.N.V. Builders Private Limited v. State Tax Officer, Gobichettipalayam, from WA no. 1742 of 2024] It is trite law that service of notice or order is essentially a question of fact – Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1 : Niranjan Agarwalla v. Union of India, 1960SCC OnLine Cal 111. It is equally true […]
[dated 29.07.2024, in Somaprasanth Karampudi v. Union of India, from WP no. 14969 of 2024] The petitioner’s registration was cancelled on 21.02.2019. Thereafter, proceedings related to the impugned demand order commenced. Physical notices sent to the petitioner returned with the noting “Left”. Further, notices were also sent to the petitioner’s registered email address. The fact […]
[dated 02.08.2024, in Shree Balaji Engineering Services v. Union of India, from R/Special civil application no. 11281 of 2024] Inter alia, the petitioner had challenged the vires of section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act. Citing the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. M/s. Commercial Steel Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5121 […]
[Order dated 01.08.2024, in Kehmka Aviation (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Ward 1, from W.P.(C) No. 10591 of 2024] A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued, to which the petitioner responded. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the response by simply stating that the reply is not satisfactory. The Court is inundated with […]
[Order dated 08.07.2024 of the High Court of Delhi, in Shri Sai Metals v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, West Delhi, from W.P.(C) No. 9168 of 2024] According to section 29(3) of the CGST Act, cancellation of registration shall not affect the liability of the person to pay tax and other dues or […]
Upon fulfilment of two conditions: (i) selection of returns for scrutiny; and (ii) the discovery of discrepancies on such scrutiny; there is an obligation on the proper officer to issue a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 for scrutiny of returns. However, on closely examining both Sections 61 and 73 of the CGST Act, there is no indication in either provision that scrutiny of returns and the issuance of Form GST ASMT-10 constitute a mandatory pre-requisite for adjudication.
U/s.35(6), if the registered person fails to account for the goods / services, the proper officer shall determine the tax payable, as if such goods / services were supplied and ss.73/74 shall apply for determination of tax. On the other hand, s.130 provides for confiscation and penalty u/s.122 where any person does not account for any goods on which he is liable to pay tax. Nevertheless, after issuing a notice u/s.130, tax and penalty cannot be determined u/ss.73/74 whatsoever.
Petitioner failed to reply to the notice u/s.61 of the CGST Act, 2017 as well as show cause notice (SCN) u/s.73 ibid. Hence, opportunity of personal hearing was not demanded by the petitioner. There was no application even to seek an extension of time to file a reply. [dated 09.07.2024, in Chaudhary Associates Lko. v. […]
[dated 01.07.2024, in Raju Sreedharan v. Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise, from W.P. (C) No. 9681 of 2024] In Anishia Chandrakanth v. Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise [W.P.(C) No.30644 of 2023], the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala (vide order dated dated 09.04.2024) observed as follows: It is not in dispute that the GST […]
[dated 13.01.2023 , in Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Limited v. Union of India, from Writ Petition No. 23995 of 2022 (T-RES)] Notification No.13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 excluded the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computation of limitation period for filing GST refund application. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation 2022 […]
Power to arrest, prior to conviction, is specified under Section 69 and can be exercised only by the Commissioner if he has reasons to believe that any of the specified offences were committed.
Section 129 does not require existence of mens rea to impose penalty. This has been watered-down, to an extent, with the issue of Circular No.64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018, which specifies minimum penalty for minor offences. Yet, roving squad officers have been imposing maximum penalty for any violation under Section 129. Therefore, the judiciary has come to the rescue of innocent taxpayers from the clutches of Section 129.
Even if the dealer does not cancel the e-way bill within 24 hours of its generation, it would remain a matter of inquiry to determine on evidence whether an actual transaction had taken place or not. It is the duty of the authorities to ascertain whether double movement of goods had taken place.