Delhi HC Refuses To Quash ₹47.93 Lakh GST Demand, Says Common Supplier Alone Doesn't Bar Parallel Proceedings

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a ₹47.93 lakh GST demand against a taxpayer, holding that the mere fact that State and Central GST proceedings involved the same supplier does not, by itself, attract the bar against parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held that the expression “same subject matter” under Section 6(2)(b) has to be determined by examining the...

GST Refund Can Be Withheld During Anti-Evasion Probe Involving Fraud, Malfeasance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the pendency of an Anti-Evasion investigation, coupled with the Commissioner's finding of suspected fraud or malfeasance, can justify withholding a GST refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act even when no appeal against the order granting the refund is pending.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by an electronics exporter, which had sought release of a...

Outdoor Playground Equipment Attracts 5% GST, Gym Equipment 18%: Gujarat AAR

On 29 September, the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that outdoor playground equipment and outdoor gym equipment are classifiable under Heading 9506, with their spare parts generally following the classification of the equipment, while bearings are separately classifiable under Heading 8482. A Bench comprising SGST Member Sushma Vora and CGST Member Vishal Malani passed the ruling on an application by Sundek Sports Pvt. Ltd. It also held that outdoor playground equipment and its...

Taxpayer Can Seek GST Refund Even If Not Party To Case Striking Down Levy: GSTAT Surat

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), at Surat, has held that a taxpayer can claim a refund of tax paid under a levy subsequently declared unconstitutional, even if the taxpayer was not a party to the proceedings in which the levy was struck down. “Therefore, a taxpayer may claim refund of tax collected under a levy subsequently declared ultra vires or unconstitutional in a judgment even if he was not a party to such judgment,” the tribunal held. The ruling came in 46...

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...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Aditya Industries' GST Notice, Says Fraud Must Be Backed By Facts

On 29 September, the Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a show-cause notice alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) issued to Aditya Industries under Section 74 of the Himachal Pradesh GST Act on the ground that registrations of certain suppliers had been cancelled as they were found to be non-existent, among other reasons. A Division Bench comprising Justices Ajay Mohan Goel and Yogesh Jaswal emphasised that a GST show-cause notice must set out the facts establishing how the...

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...

Central, State GST Officers Can Exercise Cross-Empowerment Powers Without Separate Notification: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that Central and State GST officers can exercise cross-empowerment under Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act even without a separate government notification. The notification is required only when the government wants to impose conditions on the exercise of those powers, the court observed.A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice S. Raveekumar was dealing with a batch of 22 writ appeals. Sixteen were filed by State GST authorities and...