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 |

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

Extension of Appeal Filing Time by the Appellate Authority

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:00:41 +0000

Introduction:

The authority of the Appellate Authority to extend the period for filing an appeal was deliberated upon in the case of Jyanata Ghosh v. State of West Bengal by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Jyanata Ghosh, referred to as the Petitioner, received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) which lacked essential details regarding personal hearing.
Following the SCN, an Order was issued on August 11, 2023, under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, demanding a significant sum from the Petitioner for a specified period.
The issuance of this order violated principles of natural justice as it did not grant the Petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing.
Challenging this order, the Petitioner appealed before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, only to have the appeal dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

Issue:

Whether the Appellate Authority possesses the jurisdiction to extend the period for filing an appeal.

Held:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court directed that the Appellate Authority should have granted the Petitioner a personal hearing and decided the appeal on its merits, emphasizing the violation of the principle of natural justice.
The court cited precedents such as Murtaza B Kaukawala v. State of West Bengal and S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India, highlighting that delay can be condoned if the principles of natural justice are violated.
It was further noted that the prescribed period for filing an appeal, initially set at 30 days, can be extended by the Appellate Authority, as mandated by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Consequently, the court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated January 17, 2024. Additionally, it ordered a stay on the recovery proceedings pending the disposal of the appeal case, upon the Petitioner’s deposit of the pre-deposit amount, thereby disposing of the writ petition in favor of the Petitioner.

category

Reinstatement of GST Numbers Contingent on Clearing Dues Highlights Tax Adherence and Procedural Flexibility

editor — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 12:22:39 +0000

Introduction:

This case law concerns a judgment from the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, which offers a lifeline for GST compliance by restoring GST registration upon the settlement of dues.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner’s GST registration was canceled following their failure to respond to a show cause notice issued by tax authorities on November 16, 2021. Subsequently, the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed due to their absence before the Appellate Authority.

Issue:

The main issue was whether the petitioner’s GST registration, canceled due to non-compliance with the show cause notice and absence during the appeal, could be reinstated upon their commitment to clear outstanding taxes, penalties, and interest as per GST laws.

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner advocated for the restoration of their GST number, pledging to settle all dues, including taxes, penalties, and interest, in accordance with the GST Act, 2017, upon reinstatement.

Respondent’s Argument:

The Respondent, represented by the Advocate General, did not oppose the petitioner’s proposal to settle dues and reinstate the GST number.

Held:

Considering the unique circumstances and lack of objection from the Respondent, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh disposed of the case by instructing the petitioner to approach the concerned Officer for GST number restoration within seven days. Upon restoration, the petitioner must settle taxes, penalties, and interest within another seven days, as mandated by the GST Act, 2017.

category

Entitlement to Interest Commences After Sixty Days from Refund Application Until Credited to Bank Account

editor — Sat, 06 Apr 2024 05:35:52 +0000

In a significant ruling by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Raghav Ventures vs. Commissioner of Delhi [W.P.(C) NO. 12209 OF 2023 dated March 01, 2024], the issue of entitlement to interest on delayed GST refunds was examined. The case sheds light on the statutory provisions and clarifications regarding the payment of interest under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (“the CGST Act”).

Facts of the Case:

M/s Raghav Ventures ("the Petitioner") engaged in exporting mobile phones and accessories to M/s AZ Logistic, Dubai, UAE, thereby paying Integrated Goods and Services Tax ("IGST").
During the Impugned Period (December 2022, February 2023, March 2023, and May 2023), the Petitioner paid IGST totaling significant amounts i.e. Rs. 1,63,16,851/-, Rs. 50,46,889/-, Rs. 17,26,288/-, and Rs. 13,85,382/-, respectively.
The Petitioner filed refund applications for the IGST paid during the Impugned Periods in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the CGST rules.
Despite receiving acknowledgments for the refund applications, the refunds were not processed within the stipulated time frame.
The IGST refunds were eventually sanctioned and credited into the Petitioner's bank account but without any accompanying interest.
The Petitioner subsequently filed an application to the Revenue Department seeking interest on the delayed refunds.

Issue:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed refund of IGST as per statutory provisions?

Held:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the Writ Petition (C) NO. 12209 OF 2023, held the following:

Interest becomes payable under Section 56 of the CGST Act if the refund ordered under Section 54(5) is not processed within 60 days from the date of the refund application.
The payment of interest under Section 56 is a statutory provision and does not rely on any claim made by the assessee.
Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated November 18, 2019, clarifies that interest accrues from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of the refund application until the amount is credited to the applicant's bank account.
Consequently, the Petitioner is entitled to statutory interest at the rate of 6% from the date following the expiry of sixty days from the date of the refund application until the refund is credited to the bank account.
The Court directed the Revenue Department to process the refund of interest and credit the same into the Petitioner's account within four weeks.

category

Bombay HC Invalidates Tax Order Without Personal Hearing

editor — Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:35:47 +0000

In the case of Cowtown Software Design Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India, heard in the Bombay High Court under Writ Petition (L) No. 31152 of 2023, the court addressed the crucial issue of whether the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner by tax authorities was in compliance with Section 75(4) of the GST Laws.

Facts of the Case & Timelines:

Issue:

Petitioner’s Argument:

Respondent’s Argument:

Held:

category

Delhi High Court Facilitates Refund Requests for Overpaid Taxes, Streamlining Procedural Deadlines for Taxpayers!

editor — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:38:03 +0000

If the Tax Department has demanded payment for taxes from you because your supplier failed to remit them, and later it is discovered that your supplier did, indeed, pay the taxes, you should apply for a refund.

Facts of the Case & Timelines:

The petitioner was compelled to pay taxes on certain invoices for the fiscal year 2019-2020, due to the delayed filing of returns by Respondent No. 3.

Subsequently, it was revealed that Respondent No. 3 had filed returns and claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the same invoices, resulting in double payment. Consequently, the petitioner sought a refund for the excess payment.

Issue:

The main issue revolved around whether the petitioner is eligible for a refund of the tax paid under the assumption of non-compliance by Respondent No. 3, leading to double payment.

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner contended that they were compelled to make the tax payment due to the initial non-compliance by Respondent No. 3. With the subsequent filing of returns, they asserted their right to a refund of the tax paid for the mentioned invoices.

Respondent’s Argument:

The respondent argued against the petitioner’s refund claim, stating that it was not entertained because the petitioner had not filed a proper refund application as required by Section 54 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

Held:

The Delhi High Court permitted the petitioner to submit an appropriate refund application in accordance with Section 54 of the Act. Furthermore, it decreed that the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2023, as well as the period from the filing of the petition (19.01.2024) until the present date, should be excluded when calculating the limitation period for submitting a refund application.

The court refrained from discussing the merits of the case and reserved the right to adjudicate the refund claim according to the law.

category

CBDT Releases Guidelines for Expedited Appeal Disposal

editor — Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:39:13 +0000

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued guidelines, dated March 07, 2024, under F.No.279/Misc/M-102/2021-ITJ, aimed at expediting the handling of appeals by Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals/Assessment Unit) or Additional/Joint CIT(A).

As per these directives, priority resolution will be given to appeals involving genuine and exceptional circumstances, either initiated by the appellant themselves or referred by the Assessing Officer/Range Head. Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax/Chief Commissioners of Income Tax/Directors General of Income Tax will assess these appeals based on advice from local tax authorities.

Examples of such extraordinary situations include appeals with a demand exceeding Rs. 1 Crore, cases flagged by VIPs or the Prime Minister’s Office for prompt resolution, appeals mandated by courts for swift handling, appeals from senior or super senior citizens, or any other appeal presenting genuine difficulties.

For appeals under the jurisdiction of faceless Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals Unit), requests for expedited processing should be directed to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (National Faceless Assessment Centre), who will then forward them to the relevant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals Unit).

The guidelines are available for reference at: https://www.nyca.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Guidelines_for_priority_out_of_turn_disposal_of_appeals_by_CsIT.pdf

category