CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases |

Delhi High Court Invalidates Demand Order Due to Lack of Recorded Personal Hearing

editor — Fri, 05 Apr 2024 06:05:12 +0000

The Delhi High Court recently ruled on a GST case involving Electra Power Transmission Systems and the Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax.

Facts of the Case

Held

The main issue was whether the demand was justified given the petitioner's claim of appearance and attempted compliance, marred by administrative errors.
The petitioner argued that they did attend the hearing and submitted a reply, but due to an office error, crucial documents weren't uploaded. They sought another chance to present their case fully, with all necessary documentation.
The respondent maintained that the petitioner's response was unsatisfactory and noted their absence at the hearing, justifying the demand based on procedural defaults.
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case for re-adjudication. The court instructed the petitioner to submit all relevant documents and be given another hearing. No comment was made on the merits of the arguments, preserving all rights.

category

High Court of Gujarat Rules on GST Case

editor — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 04:44:00 +0000

In a significant legal development, the High Court of Gujarat has recently issued a noteworthy ruling in the case of OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT LTD versus UNION OF INDIA. This ruling addresses a crucial aspect pertaining to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, particularly focusing on the retrospective application of amendments to Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The case, denoted as R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13209/210/212/213/215 of 2023, reached its culmination on 27th March 2024.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT LTD, contested against the UNION OF INDIA, asserting that Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules should not be applicable in their situation. They contended that their online appeals were based on the Order-in-Original made available by the adjudicating authority.
The crux of the issue revolved around the requirement for the petitioner to submit the decision or order being appealed against within seven days of filing the appeal under sub-rule (1) of Rule 108, and the subsequent issuance of a final acknowledgment by the appellate authority indicating the appeal number.

Held:

The High Court determined that the petitioner was indeed obligated to adhere to the stipulated timeline for submitting the decision or order appealed against, as outlined in Rule 108.
While acknowledging the justifiability of the appellate authority's rejection of appeals due to delays, the Court referenced the Minutes of the 48th Meeting of the GST Council. This documented the Council's acceptance of recommendations put forth by the Law Committee.
According to these recommendations, when an order subject to appeal is issued or uploaded on the common portal and is accessible to the appellate authority, the necessity for the appellant to furnish a certified copy of such an uploaded order becomes inconsequential due to its online availability.
Consequently, the retrospective effect of the amendment to Rule 108, effective from 26th December 2022, was affirmed by the Court as being clarificatory in nature.
In light of this clarification, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay was deemed untenable. Therefore, the High Court proceeded to quash and set aside the impugned order.

category

Madras High Court Invalidates GST Assessment Over ITC Disparity

editor — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 04:58:07 +0000

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court addressed the validity of a GST assessment order in the case of Sri Lakshmi Silvers versus The State Tax Officer, Gugai Circle, Salem. The case centered on the adherence to procedural guidelines and principles of natural justice in GST assessments, particularly concerning disparities between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, engaged in the supply of base metals, faced a GST assessment order pertaining to the tax demand arising from differences between the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B returns and that reflected in the auto-populated GSTR-2A returns for the year 2019-20.
Despite receiving a notice and show cause notice, the petitioner, relying on their accountant, remained unaware, resulting in no response from their side.
The central issue revolved around the validity of the assessment order, particularly concerning principles of natural justice and adherence to specific circulars regarding GST return discrepancies.

Petitioner’s Argument:

Department’s Argument:

Held:

category

Decision by High Court Allows Refund of Reversed ITC When Supplier Pays Tax

editor — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 04:23:57 +0000

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P. (C) 1039/2024 dated March 19, 2024], resolved the writ petition, permitting registered entities to submit refund applications for reversed Input Tax Credit (ITC) when the supplier has subsequently filed returns and paid taxes.

Facts of the case:

In the matter of Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P. (C) 1039/2024 dated March 19, 2024], the petitioner, Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition. The petition sought direction for granting Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits on invoices where the recipient had filed subsequent returns and paid taxes.
The petitioner argued that they were compelled by the Revenue Department to pay taxes on invoices where the supplier hadn't filed returns on time. However, the supplier later filed returns and paid taxes, potentially leading to double taxation. Hence, the petitioner sought a refund for the taxes paid on such invoices.
Responding to objections, the petitioner proposed filing a refund application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Additionally, they cited Notification No. 13/2022 dated July 05, 2022, advocating the exclusion of the period between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2023, from the limitation for filing refund applications. The petitioner also requested exclusion of the period between filing the writ petition and the court's order.

Held:

The Delhi High Court, in W.P. (C) 1039/2024, dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The court directed the respondent to adjudicate the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law. Notably, the court recognized the petitioner's eligibility under the Notification, excluding the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for computing the limitation period for filing refund applications.

category

Consolidation of Adjournment in GST Proceedings

editor — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:49:50 +0000

In the legal matter of Pioneer Co-Operative Car Parking Servicing and Constructions Society Ltd. against Senior Joint Commissioner [WPA No. 3092 of 2024 dated March 1, 2024] at the Calcutta High Court, the petition was resolved, establishing that an adjournment granted for Show Cause Notice (SCN) proceedings under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) cannot be merged with an adjournment granted for other proceedings under GST.

Facts of the case:

Pioneer Co-Operative Car Parking Servicing and Constructions Society Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) is a cooperative society registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973. It operates in collecting parking fees. The Petitioner received an SCN on September 12, 2023, from the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act. The Petitioner responded to the notice. Subsequently, a Final Order dated November 6, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”) was issued, determining the tax liability under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act.

The Petitioner, dissatisfied with the Impugned Order, filed a writ petition alleging inadequate opportunity for a hearing.

Issue:

Whether adjournment granted for Show Cause Notice proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act can be clubbed together with adjournment granted for other proceedings under GST?

Held:

The Calcutta High Court, in the case of WPA No. 3092 of 2024, made the following determinations:

It was observed that under sub-section (5) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, the proper officer may grant adjournment upon sufficient cause shown, with written reasons. However, such adjournments should not exceed three times during the proceedings.
It was reasoned that adjournments granted to the Petitioner concerning proceedings under Section 61 of the CGST Act should not be combined with SCN proceedings. Thus, the Petitioner had adequate opportunities to respond to the SCN issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act.
The communication dated February 15, 2024, regarding tax recovery was deemed unsustainable and subject to annulment.
It was directed that the Petitioner must submit a response to the SCN, and the Respondent should schedule a personal hearing accordingly.

category

Validity of Assessment Orders in Light of Assessee’s Response

editor — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:01:20 +0000

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Emco Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P. 1622 of 2024, February 27, 2024], addressed the issue of the validity of an assessment order when the Assessee’s response hadn’t been duly considered. The court emphasized the importance of taking into account the Assessee’s reply before issuing an assessment order. It was highlighted that if further details were needed, it was the responsibility of the Revenue Department to request them from the Assessee.

Facts of the case:

The case stemmed from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 24, 2023, issued by the Revenue Department against Emco Cables Pvt. Ltd. The notice accused the Assessee of under-declaring output tax, claiming excessive Input Tax Credit (ITC), and claiming ITC from canceled dealers and non-taxpayers. The Assessee responded to the notice with a detailed reply. However, the subsequent order dated December 29, 2023 (Impugned Order), found the Assessee’s reply unsatisfactory and directed further action without adequately considering the response.

Issue:

The central issue revolved around whether an assessment order lacking consideration of the Assessee’s response could be deemed valid.

Held:

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in W.P. 1622 of 2024 outlined the following key points:

Emphasized the obligation of the Proper Officer to thoroughly assess the Assessee's reply before forming an opinion on its sufficiency.
Noted the failure of the Proper Officer to seek additional details from the Assessee if deemed necessary, rather than dismissing the response outright.
Criticized the lack of evidence suggesting that the Proper Officer had indeed reviewed the Assessee's submission.
Set aside the Impugned Order and remanded the case back to the Proper Officer for reconsideration.

category

Discretion of Appellate Authority in Admitting Appeals Beyond Limitation Period

editor — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:48:21 +0000

In the case of Arvind Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes [Writ Petition Application No. 2904 of 2023 dated January 04, 2024], the esteemed Calcutta High Court determined that the Appellate Authority possesses the discretion to permit the submission of an appeal within one month after the expiration of the prescribed limitation period from the date of order communication, provided sufficient cause is demonstrated, as per Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).

Facts of the case:

The Appellate Authority retains discretion to accept appeals submitted after the limitation period.
The Calcutta High Court, in Arvind Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes [Writ Petition Application No. 2904 of 2023 dated January 04, 2024], affirmed that the Appellate Authority possesses discretion to entertain appeals within one month after the expiration of the limitation period as per Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act").
Arvind Gupta, the petitioner, appealed before the Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, mentioned in the annexure to FORM GST APL-01 the period of delay and reasons for the delay:

Issue:

Whether the Appellate Authority may exercise discretion to admit appeals submitted within one month after the limitation period?

Held:

Relied on, the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of S.K. Chakraborty v. Union of India & Ors. (MAT 82 of 2022) where the Bench held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the CGST Act under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands attracted. Hence, the Respondent has the discretion to allow an appeal to be presented within one month after the expiry of the period of limitation stipulated from the date of communication of the order upon sufficient cause being shown as per Section 107 (4) of the CGST Act. Paraphrase
Observed that, it was well within the power of the Respondent to consider the prayer of the Petitioner for condonation of delay. The Impugned Order passed by the Respondent that there is no scope to condone the delay beyond four months suffers from infirmity.
Noted that, the delay was evident from the annexure to FORM GST APL-01 and the Petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the statutory period.
Held that, the Respondent failed to exercise its jurisdiction. The delay in presenting the appeal before the Respondent was condoned. The Respondent was directed to consider the appeal on merit and decide the same in accordance with law upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

category