GST
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...
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹2.31 Crore Anti-Profiteering Liability Against LICHFL Care Homes
The Delhi High Court has upheld a ₹2.31 crore anti-profiteering liability imposed on LICHFL Care Homes Limited in relation to its residential project 'Jeewan Anand' in Bhubaneswar, Odisha.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain rejected the developer's contention that CENVAT credit which was legally available under the pre-GST regime but not actually availed should be taken into account while determining the benefit arising from the introduction of GST.“The Petitioner may...
Failure To Furnish Bank Details For GST Registration Is Curable Lapse: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has observed that failure to furnish bank details, though a violation of Rule 10A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, can be cured by producing the correct bank details and supporting documents to establish the taxpayer's bona fides.Justice Smita Das De made the observation while considering a plea against cancellation of GST registration for non-submission of bank details. The court noted that cancellation of GST registration has severe civil consequences and...
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...
ITC Cannot Be Denied Solely Over GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A Mismatch: GSTAT Lucknow
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow on 18 September held that a mismatch between Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B (a self-declared summary return) and the credit reflected in GSTR-2A (an auto-generated statement of supplier filings), by itself, cannot justify denial of the credit.A Division Bench of Judicial Member Narendra Kumar and Technical Member Alok Chopra remanded R R Infrastructure Projects' ITC dispute for fresh consideration, directing the adjudicating authority to...
Loading Ballast Into Railway Wagons Is Separate Service, Attracts 18% GST: Karnataka AAR
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that supply of ballast to the Railways and its subsequent loading into railway wagons are separate and independently identifiable supplies. The two activities cannot be treated as a composite supply merely because they arise from the same tender or work order. A Bench comprising Central Member Kalyanam Rajesh Rama Rao and State Member Sivakumar S. Itagi, passed a ruling in an application filed by S.K. Swamy and Company concerning the GST...
GSTAT Directs Hyderabad Cinema Operator To Deposit ₹81,722 For Failing To Pass On GST Rate Cut Benefit
The Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 19 September directed Hyderabad-based cinema operator Devi 70MM to deposit Rs. 81,722 towards profiteering for failing to pass on the benefit of the reduction in GST on cinema admission tickets priced at Rs. 100 or below, which was reduced from 18% to 12% with effect from 1 January 2019. A Single Member Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain held that a cinema operator must pass on the benefit of a GST rate...
Supreme Court Questions If GST Authorities Can Decide What Material Seized From Advocate's Office Is Privileged
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned whether GST authorities investigating a case could themselves decide which material seized from an advocate was protected by advocate-client privilege while hearing a plea by advocate Puneet Batra challenging the search of his office and seizure of his computer and documents. A Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu raised the question during the hearing after Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Union government,...