The Petitioner had questioned the validity of Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act, 2017. According to the said provision, Input Tax Credit (ITC) would be available to a recipient subject to the condition that the supplier has furnished the details of the invoice / debit note in Form GSTR-1 and such details are communicated to […]
[Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, dated 24.11.2025, in WP. no. 100780 OF 2024 (T-Res)] Following the decision dated 22.04.2025 of the Coordinate Bench in WP. no. 4254/2024(T-Res), wherein it was held that: i) Activities of universities are not commercial in nature and cannot be termed as ‘supply’ in the course or furtherance […]
[Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, dated 30.07.2025, in M.A.T. no. 104 of 2024] The statutory time limit of 60 days as stipulated in Section 54(7) of the CGST Act is mandatory. Non-compliance with such time limit vitiates the refund rejection order. Therefore, the Department was directed to refund the entire claim with […]
The Petitioner, engaged in export of services, had claimed refund of unutilized GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) by providing a Chartered Accountant’s (CA) certificate – instead of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) – for receipt of net foreign exchange. However, the refund was rejected on the ground of non-submission of FIRCs. Notably, the Reserve Bank […]
[Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, dated 09.04.2025, in W.P. (C) No. 4576 of 2025] At the outset, right to cross examination safeguards the aggrieved party from being prejudiced. It is only when a deposition goes through the fire of cross-examination that a court or statutory authority may be able to determine and […]
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 […]
[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 […]