S.54(11) GST Act | Assessee's Refund Can't Be Held Back On Commissioner's Opinion Alone, Twin Conditions Must Be Satisfied: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes twin conditions for Revenue holding back Refund due to an Assesseee, despite an order to that effect.Section 54(11) of the Act would show that the refund can be held back on the satisfaction of the following two conditions – (i) when an order directing a refund is subject matter of a proceeding which is pending either in appeal or any other proceeding under the Act; and (ii) thereafter...

S.161 DGST Act | Personal Hearing Can Be Dispensed Only If Assessee's Rectification Application Is Allowed, Not Rejected: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that in terms of proviso 3 to Section 161 of the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, an order rejecting the rectification application filed by an assessee cannot be passed without first hearing the assessee.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta further said that the hearing can be dispensed with only where the rectification application is allowed. It observed,“As per proviso 3 to Section 161, the rectification order, if allowed...

NOIDA Authorities Deposited Party's Tax Under Wrong Head: Allahabad HC Directs Compensation To Assessee For Penalty Imposed U/S 73 Of GST Act

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has directed the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) to compensate the assesee Rs. Rs.19,22,778/- which was imposed on the assesee as tax and penalty in proceedings under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner rented out his property in Gautam Budh Nagar(Noida). The rent received from the property was taxable under the GST Act. Petitioner duly deposited the one-time lease rent of Rs. 97,18,500/- and the tax of...

Delhi HC Flags Rise In GST Litigation, Asks Department To Depute Officials To Enable Expeditious Disposal

The Delhi High Court has flagged the rise in number of GST related cases being filed before it and to ensure expeditious disposal of cases, particularly those arising out of procedural issues, has asked the Department to depute at least two officials from its litigation section.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said these officials can coordinate with the various Commissionerates of the GST department and give instructions to the Department's counsels, in an...

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...