Wrongful ITC Availment Alone Cannot Justify Tax Evasion Proceedings: Kolkata GSTAT

The Kolkata Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has held that invocation of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires material establishing deliberate suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement with an intent to evade tax, and cannot rest merely on an allegation of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). A Two Member Bench comprising Judicial Member S.G. Chattopadhyay and Technical Member Bijoy Kumar Kar partly allowed the Revenue's...

Property Acquisition By State Not A Supply Of Goods Or Services: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that compulsory acquisition of immovable property by the State in exercise of eminent domain does not amount to a supply of goods or services liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST). Justice R. Nataraj quashed the deduction of Rs. 12,28,906 towards GST from the compensation payable to four landowners whose house property was acquired for widening the Mysuru-Madikeri Highway. The Bench observed: “...An immovable property cannot at any stretch of imagination is...

GSTAT Lucknow Says Mere E-Invoice Lapse Cannot Establish Tax Evasion, Sets Aside ₹63.72 Lakh Penalty

The Lucknow Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 28 September held that a procedural lapse in generating an e-invoice, without material showing tax evasion, cannot by itself warrant penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.A Bench comprising Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar allowed VLM Null Group's appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II, State Tax, Kanpur, imposing a...

GST Department Can't Challenge Registration Restoration Orders After Implementing Them: GSTAT Hyderabad

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Hyderabad, on 18 September held that the GST Department cannot challenge orders restoring GST registrations after acting upon those orders and restoring the registrations. A Two-Member Bench comprising Judicial Member A P Ravi and Technical Member Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas disposed of 16 Department appeals as not maintainable, holding that they had become infructuous after the registrations were restored. The Tribunal observed: “Having...

Separate GST Proceedings Not Barred If Subject Matter Is Different: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that separate GST proceedings against a taxpayer are not barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where the allegations, material relied upon and nature of the alleged defaults in the two proceedings are different.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by Star Traders challenging proceedings initiated by the GST authorities for alleged wrongful...

GST Audit Proceedings Distinct From Section 74 Adjudication; Delhi High Court Declines To Quash SCN

The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings arising from a GST audit are distinct from the subsequent adjudicatory proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar declined to interfere with a show cause notice issued to a pharmaceutical distributor under Section 74, observing that the taxpayer could raise all its objections before the competent adjudicating authority.The Court was...

GST Act | Personal Penalty Can Apply To Non-Taxable Persons For Transactions From January 1, 2021: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the expression “any person” under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 is not confined to a “taxable person” and can include persons who are not registered or liable to be registered under the GST regime.At the same time, the Court ruled that Section 122(1A), which provides for personal penalties in specified fraudulent GST transactions, operates prospectively and can be invoked only in respect of acts or transactions committed...

Karnataka High Court Says Pregnancy Justifies Absence From GST Proceedings, Remands Ex-Parte Order

The Karnataka High Court on 18 September held that an ex-parte GST adjudication order can be set aside where a taxpayer's non-appearance is sufficiently justified, including on account of pregnancy and related medical complications. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil of the Kalaburagi Bench allowed a writ petition filed by Soumya, proprietrix of Ganga Medical Stores, against the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Bidar and the Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise. The Bench...

GSTAT Bengaluru Sets Aside 100% Penalty On I-NXT, Says ITC Mismatch Alone Can't Trigger Penalty

The Bengaluru Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 15 September held that an ITC mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A cannot, by itself, attract Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act without establishing a link between the mismatch and fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. A Bench comprising Technical Member Sudha Koka and Judicial Member Srikanth Venkatraman allowed I-NXT's appeal and set aside the 100% penalty imposed under...

GSTAT Delhi Bench Sets Aside Profiteering Proceedings Against Vertex Homes Over ITC Benefit

The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi, on 2 September set aside profiteering proceedings against Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd. concerning its “Vertex Panache” project in Hyderabad, after finding that the increase in construction costs had offset the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC). A Bench comprising Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta accepted the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) revised calculation of nil profiteering, after it deducted Rs. 3.49 crore in verified cost...

GSTAT New Delhi Directs Bengal Emami Housing To Pass On ₹70.58 Lakh ITC Benefit To Homebuyers

The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has directed Bengal Emami Housing Ltd. to pay ₹70.58 lakh, including GST, to eligible homebuyers of its “Swan Court” project in Kolkata on account of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit.The Division Bench comprising President Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta held that the profiteering computation should be confined to the Higher Income Group (HIG) category.The proceedings arose from a...

GSTAT Agra Splits Over ₹10.10 Lakh Penalty On Tata Play For Wrong Vehicle Number, Refers Matter To VP

The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra, on 10 September differed on whether mentioning an entirely different vehicle number in an e-way bill can attract penalty under Section 129 of the CGST/UPGST Act. A Split Bench of Judicial Member Ajeet Singh and Technical Member Vivek Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against an order deleting a Rs. 10,10,186 penalty imposed on Tata Play Limited after its vehicle was intercepted while transporting goods from Delhi to...