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

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

High Court of Madras sets aside GST penalty, emphasizes fair hearing and pre-assessment payments in tax disputes.

editor — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 07:10:27 +0000

Introduction

The High Court of Madras recently ruled on a case involving a works contractor for government departments, addressing penalties imposed under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court emphasized the importance of fair hearings and pre-assessment payments in tax disputes.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a works contractor, received an assessment order on April 19, 2023, due to discrepancies in their GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns.
A show cause notice was issued in February 2023.
On April 12, 2023, before the assessment order was issued, the petitioner paid Rs. 3,00,000/- towards their tax liability, citing delayed payments from government departments as the reason for the discrepancies and delayed payment.
The petitioner contested the imposition of a 100% penalty on the dues under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue

The core issue revolves around the justification of imposing a 100% penalty on the petitioner, considering the pre-order payment and the circumstances leading to the discrepancies.

Petitioner’s Argument

Held

The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to remit an additional Rs. 3,00,000/-. Moreover:

category

Employees get ₹3,731 crore GST penalty demand; Bombay HC strikes it down

editor — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 05:43:47 +0000

Should an employee of a company be held responsible for forking out penalties related to tax demands raised on the company by revenue authorities? Goods and Services Tax (GST) enforcement officials believed so when they slapped a demand last September for a ₹3,731 crore penalty on a taxation manager and other employees of global logistics major Maersk for alleged tax evasion of the same amount by the company.

In a judgment that could bring relief to other employees at firms in the midst of GST disputes, the Bombay High Court last week struck down the demand and show cause notices issued by the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence in the case, terming them bad and illegal.

Terming it “highly unconscionable and disproportionate” for revenue officers to hold employees responsible for liabilities of the company, a division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla held it would not be incorrect to contend that the purpose of issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner who is merely an employee, was designed to threaten and pressurize them.

GST officials had alleged that a sum of ₹1561 crore was wrongly utilized as Input Tax Credit by Maersk and those credits were wrongfully distributed. While Maersk is a foreign company which does not have any employee or fixed establishment in India, solely for the purpose of representing and acting on its behalf before the Indian tax authorities, the firm had given the power of attorney to some employees of its steamer agent in India, incorporated as Maersk Line India Pvt. Ltd.

“This ruling is significant for employees of large-sized businesses, where potentially interpretative GST positions are adopted by employees without any malafide intention. Such imposition of substantial penalties in recent investigations had caused lot of unrest amongst such employees,” an expert said.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/business/employee-gets-3731-crore-gst-penalty-demand-bombay-hc-strikes-it-down/article68025394.ece

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

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

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

Delhi High Court Alters Retrospective Revocation of GST Registration

editor — Thu, 28 Mar 2024 04:52:32 +0000

In the legal case of Supreme Enterprises versus Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, North Delhi, the Delhi High Court recently deliberated on the matter of retroactively canceling GST registration.

Facts of the case:

The petitioner contested an order issued on 07.07.2023, which retroactively annulled their GST registration starting from 18.01.2022. This cancellation stemmed from a show cause notice dated 06.06.2023, citing non-compliance with return filing requirements. However, the notice lacked specificity and failed to afford the petitioner adequate opportunity to respond.

The petitioner had previously sought cancellation of their GST registration multiple times due to business closure, but these requests were denied. Subsequently, they received a show cause notice lacking in detailed explanations or justifications.

The order for cancellation lacked clarity and reasoning, casting doubt on its validity. It did not sufficiently explain the grounds for cancellation or the resulting liabilities, nor did it justify the retroactive nature of the cancellation.

Held:

The court stressed that retrospective cancellation of GST registration must be grounded in objective criteria and not solely on non-compliance with return filing obligations. It recognized the significant ramifications of such cancellations for both the taxpayer and their customers, particularly concerning input tax credit.

Taking into account the petitioner’s cessation of business operations, the court amended the contested order to cancel the registration effective from the date of business closure, i.e., 26.07.2022. The petitioner was instructed to adhere to the necessary regulations outlined in Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Nevertheless, the court clarified that the authorities could still pursue steps for recovering any outstanding dues, including retrospective cancellation, in accordance with the law.

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