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 |

Bombay High Court Invalidates Registration Amendment Rejection: Lack of Reasons Criticized

editor — Sat, 13 Apr 2024 09:17:23 +0000

Introduction:

The Bombay High Court has invalidated the rejection of an application for registration amendment due to the lack of reasons provided for the rejection.

Facts of the case:

Issue:

Argument by the Petitioner:

Court Judgment:

category

Calcutta High Court’s Verdict on GST Pre-Deposit Requirements

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:29:32 +0000

Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court addressed the clarification of GST pre-deposit requirements, specifically focusing on the interpretation discrepancy between the GST Department and the GST Law.

Facts of the Case:

Issue:

Petitioner’s Argument:

Respondent’s Argument:

Held:

category

Delhi High Court Orders Refund of ₹35 Lakh to GST Petitioner, Emphasizing Voluntary Compliance and Due Process

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:45:30 +0000

Introduction:

The Delhi High Court’s decision mandates a refund of ₹35 lakh to a GST petitioner, underscoring the significance of voluntary compliance and adherence to due process.

Facts of the Case:

Issue:

Held:

Petitioner's Argument: Citing precedent cases, the petitioner argued that the deposit was made involuntarily under coercion, warranting a refund with interest.
Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that the deposit was voluntary and proceeded with recovery under Section 73 of the GST Act through a Show Cause Notice.
Court Judgment: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the refund of ₹35,00,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of deposit. The court deemed the deposit as non-voluntary and contrary to guidelines issued by the CBIC.

category

GST Penalty Overturned by Calcutta High Court Due to Emergency Vehicle Substitution, Showcasing Compliance Flexibility

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:23:41 +0000

Introduction:

The Calcutta High Court’s decision to quash a GST penalty related to an emergency vehicle change highlights the court’s recognition of flexibility in enforcing compliance.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner lodged an appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the Calcutta HC, which was filed 20 months following an adverse order on June 14, 2022. The delay was attributed to non-receipt of the original order and the demise of the petitioner's first lawyer.
The controversy arose from a tax and penalty imposition concerning the transportation of goods without a valid e-way bill on November 20, 2021. This was due to an emergency vehicle change, preventing the timely amendment of the e-way bill.

Issue:

The central issue revolved around the justification for imposing tax and penalty for the absence of a valid e-way bill during the transportation of goods.

Held:

Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the writ was genuine and challenged the penalty, citing an emergency vehicle change that hindered the timely amendment of the e-way bill.
Respondent's Argument: The respondent upheld the penalty, highlighting the lack of a valid e-way bill as a compliance failure.
Court Judgment: The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, acknowledging the absence of intent to evade tax and the genuine circumstances causing the appeal's delay. Consequently, the tax and penalty were ordered to be revoked.
Non-resident taxpayers
Persons subject to TDS under section 51 of the CGST Act.

category

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 Strikes Down Excessive GST Demand on Trade Payables

editor — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 04:41:27 +0000

Introduction:

The Madras High Court invalidated the order demanding payment concerning all trade payables, asserting that it exceeded the boundaries outlined in the original show cause notice. This ruling is significant in the realm of audit cases and is poised to have widespread benefits.

Facts of the case:

The petitioner contested an order dated 31.12.2023, arguing its overreach beyond the purview of a preceding show cause notice by subjecting all trade payables to GST.
Following an audit report on 26.09.2023, the petitioner received a notice on 30.09.2023 proposing a tax of Rs. 43,66,708.14. However, the final order imposed a tax exceeding Rs. 90 crores, markedly surpassing the initial estimate.
Despite compliance with statutory Input Tax Credit (ITC) requirements, the petitioner faced penalties.
The crux of the matter lies in the imposition of GST on the entirety of the petitioner's trade payables, a move perceived by the petitioner as beyond the notice's scope and contrary to legal provisions.

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner contends that the order unjustly expanded the taxable amount well beyond the initial estimation, unfairly taxing trade payables as a taxable supply despite adhering to ITC regulations.

Held:

The Madras High Court deemed the imposition of GST on trade payables, as reflected in financial statements, prima facie unsustainable.

The court nullified the order, instructing the petitioner to remit 10% of the disputed amount, excluding trade payables, and mandated a fresh review with adequate opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.

category

HC Directs GST Authority to Extend Opportunity for Assessee to Elucidate GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B Discrepancies

editor — Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:43:11 +0000

In a recent case, the High Court intervened in a dispute between a dealer of woven fabrics and ready-made garments and the tax department regarding inconsistencies between their GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B returns. The petitioner, accused of failing to respond adequately to show cause notices, contested the tax demand, claiming a lack of opportunity to provide necessary documentation. Here’s a breakdown of the case and the court’s ruling.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, engaged in the trade of woven fabrics and ready-made garments, received a show cause notice from the tax department, alleging disparities between their GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B returns. Despite awaiting crucial details from suppliers, the petitioner did not respond to the notice.

However, the department passed the order and made entire tax liability with regard to disparity between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B returns. It filed writ petition and contended that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand.

Held:

The High Court acknowledged the petitioner’s negligence in failing to submit documents upon receiving the intimation and show cause notice. However, it emphasized that if the petitioner’s explanation was valid, denying them an opportunity to address the alleged discrepancies would be unjust.

Consequently, the court deemed the impugned order invalid, with the condition that the petitioner remit 10% of the disputed tax demand. Furthermore, the tax department was directed to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to clarify their position before issuing a fresh assessment order.

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