GST Authorities Can't Deny Refund Of Pre-Deposit On Grounds Of Limitation, Violates Article 265: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held in a recent judgement that rejecting a refund claim for a statutory pre-deposit which has been made under Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, on the ground that the claim was filed after the 2-year limitation under Section 54(1), is legally unsustainable. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated, “There is no dispute to the effect that once refund is by way of statutory exercise, the same cannot be retained...

Contractors Are Liable To Pay GST At Rate Prevalent On Day Of Receipt Of Tender, Not When Work Is Allotted: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the contractors were liable to pay GST at a rate prevalent on the last day for the submission of the tenders and not when the work was allocated as the same was clear from the Special Condition No.49 existing in the contract agreement. The petitioners had filed the review on the ground that as per section 13 of the CGST Act the liability to pay tax on services arise at the time of supply of the work and thus provision of the contract was...

Burden Of Court Increasing Over Violations Of Natural Justice: Allahabad HC Imposes 20K Cost On GST Official For Not Following Mandatory Provision

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on Joint Commissioner SGST, Corporate Circle-1, Ghaziabad who had issued a show cause notice without specifying the date and time for personal hearing and had passed an order under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 creating a demand of more than Rs. 5 crore ignoring the specific request for personal hearing made by the assesee.Section 75(4) of the GST Act provides that when requested in writing, the assesee must be given...

Transitional Credit Under GST Not Allowable For Capital Goods Received After 1 July 2017: Patna HC Upholds Recovery Of Ineligible CENVAT Credit

The Patna High Court, while upholding the recovery of ₹8,62,566 as ineligible CENVAT credit, held that transitional credit under the GST regime cannot be availed for capital goods received after 1st July 2017. The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya held, “The distinction in the matter of giving benefit of CENVAT credit on capital goods during the transitional period may be found in Section 140 of the CGST Act. While this provision...

Delay Of 17 Months In Filing Appeal Not Condonable U/S 107 Of CGST Act: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Cancellation Of Registration

The Jharkhand High Court has held that an appeal filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not maintainable and the delay cannot be condoned beyond the limits expressly stated in the statute. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan held, “Even otherwise, since specific period has been enshrined in the statute itself, the same cannot be condoned. Thus, we...

[S. 93 GST Act] No Provision Empowering Authorities To Make Tax Determination Against Dead Assesee: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not empower the authorities to make determination of tax against a dead person and recover the same his legal representatives. Section 93 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for liability to pay tax in case of death of the proprietor of the firm. Section 93(1)(a) provides that when the business is continued after the death of the proprietor, the legal representative shall be liable...

GST Appellate Authority Must Pass Order On Merits Even If There's No Appearance; Can't Dismiss For Default: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act 2017) must consider the merits of an appeal even if there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant.The Court stated that the order must be passed on merits and that the dismissal cannot be merely for default. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a writ petition filed by an assessee challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing an appeal...

Dealers Cannot Claim Input Tax Credit For Purchases Linked To Exempt Sales Under UPVAT Act : Supreme Court

Emphasizing that tax statutes must be strictly construed with statutory language taking precedence over policy intent, the Supreme Court, in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (“VAT Act”), held that a dealer is not entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) on the purchase of goods where the subsequent sale of those goods is exempt from tax.“Section 13(7) outlines the circumstances under which such a benefit cannot be allowed. Section 13(7) also sets out that no...

[GST] Seller Registered At Time Of Transaction; Cannot Draw Adverse Inference Against Purchasing Dealer Over Subsequent Cancellation: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that if the seller is a registered dealer at the time of transaction, no adverse inference can be drawn against the purchasing dealer based on the subsequent cancellation of seller's registration.Justice Piyush Agrawal held “Once the seller was registered at the time of the transaction in question, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner. Further, the record shows that the registration of the selling dealer was cancelled retrospectively i.e....

College Supplying Food Through Canteen Managed By Educational Trust Is Liable For Registration Under KVAT Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that college supplying food through canteen, though managed by educational trust, is liable for registration under KVAT Act. The bench disagreed with the assessee that even if it is assumed that the sales in the canteen are found to be assessable under the provisions of the VAT, it falls within the threshold limit and therefore, the assessee cannot be compelled to take registration. It may be true that the sales across the counter in the canteen may be...

Withholding Tax Refunds Without Justification Violates Section 55 Of JVAT Act: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that withholding tax refunds beyond the statutorily prescribed period without adequate justification, violates Section 55 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and deprives the taxpayer of rightful dues. The Court ruled that the refund must carry interest from the date the excess demand was determined, and non-allocation of funds by the State cannot override this obligation.In the words of the Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice MS Ramachadran Rao...

Kerala High Court Strikes Down GST Act Provision Which Levied Tax On Supplies By Clubs/Associations To Members

In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has struck down the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allowed the levy of GST on supply by clubs and associations to its members.As per the 2021 amendment made to the CGST Act, the definition of "supply" was amended to include within its fold "activities or transactions, by a person, other than an individual, to its members or constituents or vice versa, for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration."...