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 |

Understanding the Implications of the Kerala High Court’s Decision on Extension of Limitation for Issuance of Show Cause Notice

editor — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:15:06 +0000

Introduction:

In a recent landmark case, Faizal Traders Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise, Palakkad, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court deliberated on the validity of Notifications extending the period of limitation for the issuance of Show Cause Notices under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”). This article aims to dissect the facts of the case, explore the pertinent issue, and analyze the court’s decision.

Facts of the Case:

Faizal Traders Private Limited, operating in the IHK Service to the southern railway and supplying Top-up Coupon and Recharge Coupon of M/s. BSNL as a Franchisee, contested an assessment order-in-original dated June 21, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”). The Petitioner argued that the Impugned Order was barred by limitation and challenged Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated July 05, 2022, and Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated March 31, 2023 (“the Impugned Notifications”), which extended the time limit for the Revenue Department to issue Show Cause Notices.

Issue:

The central issue before the court was whether the Revenue Department had the authority to issue Notifications for extending the period of limitation under Section 168A of the CGST Act due to COVID-19 for the issuance of Show Cause Notices.

Held:

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court, in WP (C) No. 24810 of 2023, upheld the validity of the Impugned Notifications and dismissed the writ petition challenging them. The court observed that the Notifications were issued by the Central Government based on the recommendations of the GST Council, considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Department’s operations. Noting the recommendation, the court highlighted that the limitation under Section 73 of the CGST Act was extended for the FY 2017-2018 until September 30, 2023, pursuant to the powers envisaged under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017. The court opined that the government had the authority to extend the limitation period for conducting proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act through the issuance of the Impugned Notifications, considering COVID-19 as a force majeure event.

Conclusion:

The Kerala High Court’s decision in Faizal Traders Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise, Palakkad, sets a significant precedent regarding the extension of limitation for the issuance of Show Cause Notices under the CGST Act. By upholding the validity of the Impugned Notifications, the court recognizes the exceptional circumstances posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and affirms the government’s authority to address such situations through regulatory measures.

category

Pre-deposit is to be paid through Electronic Cash Ledger when Electronic Credit Ledger is blocked due to denial of ITC

editor — Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:15:17 +0000

Introduction

In a recent ruling by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the issue of pre-deposit payment through the Electronic Cash Ledger when the Electronic Credit Ledger is blocked due to the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was discussed. This article delves into the facts of the case, the issue at hand, and the court’s decision regarding the matter.

Facts of the Case

KOG-KTV Food Products (India) (P.) Limited (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition challenging the Appellate Order passed by the Revenue Department. The Petitioner’s appeal was rejected, prompting them to argue against the necessity of pre-deposit due to the blocking of their Input Tax Credit.

Issue

The central question before the court was whether pre-deposit should be made through the Electronic Cash Ledger when the Electronic Credit Ledger is blocked as a result of ITC denial.

Held

The Hon’ble Madras High Court, in W.P. (MD) No. 21581 of 2022, made the following determinations:

Recognized that the dispute stemmed from the denial of Input Tax Credit, rendering the Electronic Credit Ledger unavailable for deposit.
Stated that the Petitioner must pre-deposit 10 percent of the disputed amount through the Electronic Cash Ledger to proceed with the appeal.
Concluded by dismissing the writ petition.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court clarifies the obligation of pre-deposit through the Electronic Cash Ledger when the Electronic Credit Ledger is inaccessible due to the denial of Input Tax Credit. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring clarity and adherence to procedural requirements in tax disputes.

category

Revenue Department Cannot Block Electronic Credit Ledger by Making Negative Balance

editor — Wed, 22 May 2024 10:33:40 +0000

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court has emphasized the correct legal procedure for handling cases of wrongful or fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) availing. In the case of Laxmi Fine Chem v. Assistant Commissioner, the court addressed the issue of whether the Revenue Department can block the electronic credit ledger by creating a negative balance. This ruling clarifies the proper application of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules and underscores the importance of following due process in tax recovery proceedings.

Facts of the Case

Background

M/s. Laxmi Fine Chem (“the Petitioner”) was informed via an order dated February 06, 2024 (“Impugned Order”) that their electronic credit ledger had been blocked by creating a negative credit amount. This action by the Revenue Department led to significant operational challenges for the Petitioner.

Grounds for Petition

Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court on two primary grounds:

Lack of Show Cause Notice: The action of blocking the ITC was undertaken without issuing any show cause notice to the Petitioner, violating principles of natural justice.
Contravention of Rule 86(A): The ITC was blocked in contravention to the provisions of Rule 86(A) of the CGST Rules. The rule permits blocking the availing of ITC only to the extent of the credit available in the electronic credit ledger and does not allow for creating a negative balance.

Issue

The core issue before the court was whether the Revenue Department can block the electronic credit ledger by making a negative balance.

Held

Court’s Observations

Impermissibility of Negative Balance: The court noted that the Impugned Order resulted in a negative credit in the Petitioner’s electronic credit ledger, which is not permissible under the CGST Rules. The rules allow blocking the availing of ITC up to the amount available in the ledger, not beyond it.
Reference to Gujarat High Court Judgement: The Telangana High Court relied on the Gujarat High Court's judgement in the case of Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. This precedent established that in cases of fraudulent ITC availing, the appropriate course of action is to initiate recovery proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act. Rule 86A does not provide for debarring the use of the electronic credit ledger by creating a negative balance.
Rule 86A's Limitations: Rule 86A empowers the proper officer to disallow debits from the electronic credit ledger only up to the amount fraudulently availed. If no ITC is available, the rule does not allow for a negative balance to be inserted.

Final Decision

The court held that the action of the Revenue Department in creating a negative credit balance was contrary to Rule 86(A) of the CGST Rules. Consequently, the court set aside the Impugned Order, providing relief to the Petitioner.

category

Revenue Department is not empowered to seize Cash under GST

editor — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 10:09:45 +0000

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Jagdish Bansal v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 16677 of 2023 dated February 26, 2024], granted relief to the petitioner by allowing the writ petition. The court instructed the Revenue Department to return the seized cash along with interest. The judgment emphasized that the Revenue Department lacks authority to seize cash under the applicable GST laws.

Facts of the case:

Search and seizure procedures were conducted at the premises of Jagdish Bansal, resulting in the confiscation of cash by the Revenue Department.

Displeased by this action, Jagdish Bansal filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the lawfulness of the cash seizure.

Issue:

The central issue at hand was whether the Revenue Department possessed the legal authority to seize cash under the GST framework.

Held:

In its ruling on W.P. (C) NO. 16677 OF 2023, the Delhi High Court made the following determinations:

Referencing the decision of the Delhi High Court in K.M Food Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukesh Kapoor Vs Director General DGGI Headquarters [W.P. (C) 328/2024 dated February 13, 2024], the court construed Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
It observed that cash does not fall under the definition of goods but rather under the definition of money as outlined in Section 2(75) of the CGST Act.
The court reiterated that cash cannot be categorized as goods and therefore cannot be subject to seizure.
It concluded that there was no valid reason for the Revenue Department to retain the seized cash.
Consequently, the court deemed the impugned order as null and directed the Revenue Department to return the seized cash along with interest.

category