Delhi VAT | No Interest On Refund For Period Of Delay Attributable To Dealer: High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that if the delay in granting refund to a dealer under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is attributable to the dealer itself, such period of delay shall be excluded for the purposes of awarding interest on refund.Section 38(3)(a)(ii) of DVAT Act stipulates a period of two months for refund of excess tax, penalty, etc., if the period for refund is a quarter.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Explanation to Section 42(1)...

Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.23 Crore GST Refund To Tata Steel Over ITC On Compensation Cess

The Jharkhand High Court has ordered Rs. 1,23,22,617/- GST refund to Tata Steel, whose largest steel plant is situated in State's Jamshedpur city.The amount represented Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Compensation Cess paid by the company under Section 8(2) of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 for purchasing its key raw material- Coal.Finding that the refund was denied by the State on 'extraneous grounds', the division bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice...

Natural Gas Can Be Equated With Petroleum Gas, To Be Taxed Under Entry 23 Of 6th Schedule Of APGST Act: Telangana High Court

In a case pertaining to the taxation of Natural Gas, the Telangana High Court has held that Natural Gas shall fall under Entry 23 of 6th Schedule, under the category of petroleum gases, and not Entry 118. The different entries change the percentage of tax levied. Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that “This bench is of the firm opinion that the findings given by the Tribunal holding that the natural gas sold by the petitioner falls under entry 23 of 6th schedule is proper” The...

CBIC Clarifies Issues In Trade & Industry Regarding Eligibility Of Cases For Benefit U/S 128A Of CGST Act

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on 27th March 2025 vide Circular No. 248/05/2025-GST has given clarification on various issues related to availment of benefit of Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017. Based on the recommendations of the GST Council made in its 53rd and 54th meetings, a new section 128A was inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 164 has been inserted in the CGST Rules, 2017 w.e.f. 1st November 2024 to provide for waiver of interest or penalty or...

Works Contract For Track Doubling & Infrastructure Under RVNL Is Liable To 12% GST: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that the works contract for track doubling and infrastructure under RVNL is liable to 12% GST. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq stated that “it may be relevant to keep in mind that while exemption notifications must be strictly construed, it certainly would not mean that the scope of the exemption notification can be curtailed by importing conditions or giving an artificially restrictive meaning to the words in an exemption notification.” In this case, the...

No Provision Allows Coercive Action Before Pre-Intimation Notice: Uttarakhand HC Criticizes GST Dept For Negatively Blocking ITC

The Uttarakhand High Court criticized the GST department for the negative blocking of ITC and questioned the provision under which such deterrent or coercive action has been taken. “The working of the Department is startling and shocking. It is not known and incomprehensible as to which provision of law permits the Department to take deterrent and coercive action, even prior to issuance of pre-intimation notice,” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok ...

Can GST Act Timelines Be Relaxed For Bonafide Errors? Supreme Court Appoints Amicus Curiae, Issues Notice To CBIC

The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) over the recurrent issue of not allowing rectification of bonafide errors made after the lapse of prescribed deadlines under the CGST Act. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge by the Union against the decision of the Bombay High Court which allowed the rectification of bonafide errors by the assessee in GSTR-1 Form despite missing...

'Timelines To Rectify Bonafide GST Form Errors Must Be Realistic' : Supreme Court Asks CBIC To Re-examine Provisions

The Supreme Court recently underscored the need for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to fix realistic timelines for correcting bonafide errors by the assesses in forms when filing GST returns. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge to the Bombay High Court order which allowed an assesee to rectify its form GSTR-1 after missing the deadline under S. 39(9) of the CGST Act. The order was challenged by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes...

Purchaser Of Residential Property Liable To Pay GST If Property Booked Before Construction Is Completed: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the transaction of booking a residential house is entered into before the completion of construction and the consideration was paid (partly or fully) before issuance of completion certificate, the same would amount to supply of services requiring payment of the service tax (GST) by the purchaser. Justice M G S Kamal recently dismissed a batch of petitions filed by B g Parmeshwara and others which had challenged the endorsement issued by...

Revenue Cannot Re-Assess Time Barred Assessment Under KVAT Act Based On CAG Report: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that revenue cannot re-assess time barred assessment under KVAT Act based on CAG report. The Division Bench of Justices A.Y. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “there cannot be an exercise of power under Section 25A of the KVAT Act beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. In fact the provisions of Section 25A allude to this aspect when it refers to the satisfaction to be recorded by the Assessing...

Notification Cannot Be Given Retrospective Effect To Deny Refund On Unutilised ITC Claimed Within Limitation Period: Madras HC Allows Gillette's Plea

Finding that the refund claim was filed within two years from the “relevant date” as defined in Explanation 2(a) to Section 54(14) of CGST Act , the Madras High Court recently clarified that a refund claim cannot be denied on the basis of retrospective operation of the Proviso to Rule 90(3) pf the CGST Rules.The High Court clarified this upon finding that the refund claims filed in the portal on Sep 21, 2018, Oct 09, 2018 and Oct 10, 2018, were within two years from the date of exports made...

Proceedings U/S 129 Of GST Act Are Summary Proceedings, Burden To Prove Actual Movement Of Goods Lies On Assesee: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act are summary proceedings where the burden to prove the actual physical movement of goods is on the assesee transporting the goods. It further held that authorities have the power to seize goods on grounds of undervaluation.Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Under the taxing statute, in the original proceeding or in the summary proceeding, the primary burden is to be discharged by the assessee by bringing on record the...