Goods and Services Tax

GST recovery stay requires pre-deposit and undertaking; refund denied despite plea of ignorance of law
Case-Laws
GST
GST recovery stay pending Tribunal proceedings was available only on compliance with the prescribed pre-deposit and filing an undertaking to appeal within time; where the taxpayer did not follow that procedure and sought refund after recovery had already been made, refund was refused. The taxpayer's plea of ignorance of the circular was rejected on the principle that ignorance of law is no excuse. Granting refund would have operated as an impermissible waiver of the pre-deposit, while the Tribunal was left free to decide the appeal on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fraud assessment notice timelines treated as directory where no prejudice was shown and statutory remedy remained available
Case-Laws
GST
In fraud assessments, the six-month period for issuing a show cause notice before the order-in-original was treated as directory, not mandatory, because the statute prescribed no consequence for breach; the challenge therefore turned on prejudice, and none was shown where multiple notices, replies, and personal hearings were granted and the assessment was passed within limitation. The writ court also declined to bypass the statutory remedy, noting that the Supreme Court had already left the assessee to pursue the appellate forum with all contentions available, including alleged prejudice from missing files; the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to invoke that remedy.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit and retrospective supplier cancellation cannot bar claims without proof of genuine supply.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit cannot be denied solely because a supplier's registration was cancelled retrospectively; the authorities must examine whether the purchaser proved actual receipt of goods through invoices, e-way bills, lorry receipts and similar records. Because that genuineness inquiry was not undertaken and most transactions predated the cancellation order, the assessment orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Section 74 foundational facts upheld, and writ challenge to the show cause notices was rejected.
Case-Laws
GST
Foundational facts supported invocation of the extended period under GST Section 74, because the notices set out detailed allegations of incorrect valuation, inadmissible credit-note adjustment and short payment of tax, backed by investigation material and prior intimation; the writ challenge was therefore rejected as the disputed factual issues were not fit for writ review. Prior audit and earlier investigation did not defeat jurisdiction, because audit under Section 65 is distinct from a pan-India DGGI investigation, and overlap alone did not invalidate notices where separate grounds of evasion were alleged. The proceedings were held maintainable and the taxpayer was directed to reply before the adjudicating authority.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Extended GST limitation under Section 74 upheld for suppression in GSTR-3B and non-filing of returns
Case-Laws
GST
Extended limitation under GST was upheld where the assessee had disclosed higher taxable turnover in GSTR-1 but restricted liability in GSTR-3B for part of the year, then failed to file returns for the later period and made only partial payment after inspection. Applying the lower threshold for invoking Section 74 under GST, the HC held that the record was sufficient to infer suppression of turnover and non-payment of tax, so the extended period and consequent demand were valid. On the separate issue of late fee for non-filing of the annual return, the Court found an inconsistency between Defect No.10 and the revenue abstract and remitted the matter only for a corrigendum correcting that limited aspect.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Assessment order against a deceased assessee is void; fresh proceedings may continue only against properly notified legal heirs.
Case-Laws
GST
Assessment proceedings issued in the name of a deceased assessee were unsustainable where the death certificate and legal heir certificate showed that death had occurred before the assessment order. The High Court set aside the impugned order because it could not validly be made against a dead person, but left the respondent free to start fresh proceedings against all legal representatives after issuing notice in accordance with the legal heir certificate.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Alternative remedy limits writ interference when natural justice complaints and penalty competence turn on factual adjudication issues.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ interference despite an alternative statutory remedy is confined to cases of patent jurisdictional defect or manifest breach of natural justice. Complaints that the reply was inadequately considered, hearing notices were not served, a statement was coerced and later retracted, or cross-examination was denied were treated as issues of factual appraisal or merits for the appellate forum, so the writ was not entertained and the petitioner was left to the statutory appeal. The Court also accepted that the proper officer conducting Section 73 or 74 adjudication can impose consequential penalty under Section 122 in the same proceeding, without separate penalty proceedings, and rejected the competence challenge.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective GST registration cancellation needs recorded reasons; matter remitted for fresh decision on effective date
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration requires specific reasons in the show cause notice and final order; without such reasons, cancellation cannot be given effect from the original registration date. The HC set aside the order only to that extent and remitted the matter to the Proper Officer for fresh consideration after allowing the taxpayer to file a detailed reply and after hearing. It did not examine the merits of the allegation that no business existed at the declared premises, and confined relief to the effective date of cancellation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fraud-based GST assessment cannot stand without allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression; proceedings must follow normal classification.
Case-Laws
GST
GST proceedings based only on mismatch between ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and ITC reflected in GSTR-2A, without any allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, fall under the normal assessment route and not the fraud-based route. The HC held that the notice and orders were issued under the normal provision, and the confirmation depended only on the taxpayer's failure to substantiate the ITC claim. The assessment was set aside and remanded for a fresh order under the normal provision, and the rejection of the waiver application was also set aside with liberty to file a fresh application.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory rectification remedy bars writ scrutiny of input tax credit disallowance; competent authority must decide the claim.
Case-Laws
GST
Where a statutory rectification remedy is available against an order disallowing input tax credit, the writ court will not examine whether the claim falls within the retrospectively extended cases at that stage. The Court held that the issue should first be considered by the competent authority in rectification proceedings, particularly where paragraph 3.5 provides such a remedy after an order under section 73 and no appeal has been filed. The writ petition was disposed of without deciding the merits, and the petitioner was given liberty to file a rectification application, which the authority must hear and decide in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Show cause notice controls parallel GST proceedings; other authorities must halt separate action and share material.
Case-Laws
GST
Mere inquiry communications, summons or intimation do not amount to initiation of adjudicatory proceedings; a show cause notice does. Applying that principle, the first show cause notice on the same GST subject matter was treated as governing the proceedings, and the authority issuing it had to continue and complete the matter. Other authorities dealing with the same issue were restrained from proceeding independently and were required to forward their material to the adjudicating authority, with prior intimation to the petitioner so it could respond effectively.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Deemed withdrawal of GST best judgment assessment follows belated return filing with full tax, interest and late fee payment.
Case-Laws
GST
Belated filing of a GST return after a best judgment assessment under Section 62, together with payment of tax, interest and late fee, is treated as resulting in deemed withdrawal of the assessment order. The note records that once the return for the relevant period was filed and the statutory dues were discharged, recovery under the assessment order could not continue. It follows the cited High Court view that subsequent compliance cures the basis for pursuing recovery under the best judgment assessment.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory appeal rights preserved through writ jurisdiction when delay is explained and merits remain open
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the Appellate Authority had not independently examined whether sufficient cause existed for the delay and had wrongly rejected the GST appeal by relying on an earlier decision without testing its relevance to the facts. It reiterated that, although the appellate forum cannot condone delay beyond the statutory limit, the statutory right of appeal is valuable and, where sufficient cause is shown, the HC may exercise writ jurisdiction to condone the delay in the interests of justice and direct disposal on merits. The rejection was set aside, the delay was condoned subject to costs, and the appeal was remitted for decision in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory pre-deposit and delay condonation: liberty granted to challenge the order, with merits left open for appellate consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
Statutory pre-deposit and delay condonation framed the operative relief: the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to file the challenge to the impugned order within two weeks, along with the statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay. All grounds were left open, and the appellate authority was directed to examine the delay question first and, if satisfied, decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST jurisdiction after taxpayer migration: prior valid actions remain effective, and the transferee authority must continue proceedings.
Circulars
GST – States
Jurisdiction in GST proceedings is determined as on the date the power is invoked, so a valid action or proceeding taken by the transferor jurisdictional authority before migration or transfer of a taxable person remains valid. The transferee jurisdictional authority must then take over, give effect to, and continue the matter from that stage, including consequential proceedings and representation in appeals, while the transferor authority cannot initiate fresh action after the transfer and must pass any new issue to the transferee authority. The Goa GST circular applies the corresponding CBIC clarification mutatis mutandis under the Goa GST Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory refund interest limited to notified rate, so higher pre-deposit interest claim was rejected in appeal.
Case-Laws
GST
Statutory interest on a refunded investigation deposit treated as a pre-deposit is confined to the rate prescribed by the governing provision and notification. Where the statute creates the right to interest and fixes the rate, the claimant cannot seek a higher amount on equitable or restitutionary grounds unless the provision or notification itself is challenged. Applying that principle, the Court upheld interest at 6% per annum and rejected the claim for a higher rate, holding that no substantial question of law arose and dismissing the appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Successive bail on parity fails without substantial change in circumstances, especially in alleged economic offences involving GST evasion.
Case-Laws
GST
Successive bail applications require a substantial change in facts or circumstances directly affecting the merits; parity with a co-accused alone does not justify release because the court must assess the accused's individual role, the gravity of the allegations and the investigation material. Economic offences are treated as a distinct class for bail and attract a stricter approach because they may involve deliberate conspiracies and broader financial harm. On the stated facts, the accused was prima facie linked to fictitious firms, fake invoices, e-way bills and alleged GST evasion through documentary, electronic and recorded statement material, so later bail to a co-accused did not amount to a sufficient change in circumstances.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective Rule 89(5) amendment allows refund processing for unutilised input tax credit on input services
Case-Laws
GST
Retrospective applicability of the amended Rule 89(5) governing refund of unutilised input tax credit on input services was treated as settled: the Court noted the Supreme Court's ruling in VKC Footsteps and the coordinate bench view in Ascent Meditech that Notification No. 14/2022 is retrospective, curative and clarificatory. As that legal position was undisputed, the deficiency memo rejecting the refund claim could not stand. The refund application was required to be processed under the amended formula and the law as declared.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory Rule 88C intimation controls GST recovery for mismatch between returns before garnishee action can proceed.
Case-Laws
GST
Mismatch between outward supplies and the return may support recovery of self-assessed tax only if the prescribed procedure is followed. The Court noted that the explanation to Section 75(12) does not create any additional liability beyond the mismatch already reflected under Sections 37 and 39. However, where recovery is pursued on that basis, the Proper Officer must first issue the prescribed intimation in FORM GST DRC-01B under Rule 88C and allow the registered person to pay the differential tax or explain the discrepancy. As no such intimation was issued, recovery through the garnishee notice under Section 79 was unsustainable and was set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Essential character test keeps cured tobacco leaves within the GST entry despite grading and bundling, preserving concessional rate.
Case-Laws
GST
Tobacco leaves under the GST rate notification were treated by reference to their essential character: sun-cured leaves procured from farmers and supplied as such, or after grading, bundling or butting, continued to fall within the entry for “tobacco leaves” in Schedule I. The rate entry was read in commercial parlance without limiting it to green, fresh or uncured leaves, and the circular was construed consistently with that reading. Curing to reduce moisture, and handling steps such as grading, bundling and butting, were not treated as processes creating a new commodity. The concessional GST rate therefore applied to such leaves.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-rickshaw CKD/SKD classification depends on a complete kit and consistent commercial records for finished vehicle GST rate
Case-Laws
GST
E-rickshaw supplies in CKD/SKD form qualify for GST treatment as the finished electrically operated vehicle only when all components needed to assemble a complete vehicle are supplied together as one identifiable kit or package, and the consignment contents and contemporaneous commercial records consistently match that description. The AAAR rejected the motor-plus-three-components test because it does not arise from Rule 2(a), the tariff, or the rate notification, and held that individual parts cannot be classified as the finished vehicle merely because some are essential components. It also noted that customs interpretative fiction under Rule 2(a) has a limited scope and cannot be extended beyond customs classification.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST treatment of DMF and NMET mining contributions turns on royalty linkage and later exemption clarification
Case-Laws
GST
Statutory contributions to the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) were treated as mandatory incidents of mining operations, because the payments were fixed as a percentage of royalty and non-payment would affect the right to extract coal. On that basis, they were considered part of mining royalty paid in the course or furtherance of business. DMF contribution was nevertheless held not liable to GST because a later clarification treated State-formed DMF trusts as Governmental Authorities eligible for exemption. NMET contribution remained liable to GST, as no similar clarification applied, and the lower ruling was upheld to that extent.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST exemption for authorised service providers fails where user charges are collected over and above statutory fees.
Case-Laws
GST
Services rendered by an authorised service provider under Telangana's electronic service delivery framework were treated as distinct from supplies by the State Government. The Authority found that MeeSeva collects user charges over and above statutory fees, and that some services also relate to non-government entities. It therefore concluded that the exemption entries in Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) apply only to Government supplies and only to the extent of statutory levies for discharge of statutory functions. User charges collected separately by MeeSeva were held outside the exemption and liable to GST, so the exemption claim was rejected.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST proceedings bar applies only after adjudication begins; lawful arrest upheld and petition dismissed
Case-Laws
GST
A same-subject-matter bar in GST proceedings arises only when adjudicatory proceedings begin through a show-cause notice; it does not arise merely because inquiry, search, or investigation has commenced. Where overlap is noticed, the authorities may decide inter se which one continues, and the other may transfer the material. Here, the State GST authorities transferred the investigation to the Central GST authorities, so the complaint and criminal proceedings were not barred as parallel proceedings. The arrest was also upheld because the grounds of arrest were furnished in writing, explained to the petitioner, and acknowledged, consistent with governing GST arrest requirements. The petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review where the GST Tribunal can examine circulars and the amended refund rule.
Case-Laws
GST
The article explains that a writ petition challenging an appellate order was not entertained because an efficacious statutory appeal was available before the GST Appellate Tribunal. It notes that questions on the effect of a departmental circular and the application of amended Rule 89(5) could be examined in that appeal, so the High Court need not exercise Article 226 jurisdiction. Relying on Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, it reiterates that circulars reflect the executive view and cannot override the statute or bind courts. The petitioner was given liberty to pursue the statutory appeal within the notified period.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =