[CGST Act] Tax Officers Expected To Know Law Laid Down By Higher Courts: Allahabad High Court

While calling for personal affidavit from Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government of U.P., Lucknow explaining the conduct of the tax officers in the State in not following the orders of the High Court, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Officers must know the law. Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that “While it is expected from the citizen to know law, the duty of the Officers increases that they should also know the law laid down by the higher courts.” ...

No Refund Of Unutilised ITC On Closure Of Business U/S 54 CGST Act, Must Be Reversed U/S 29(5): Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court stated that no refund of unutilised ITC (Input Tax Credit) on closure of business under section 54 CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax), must be reversed under section 29(5). Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 deals with refund of tax, intertest, or any other amount paid under GST. The refund can be claimed in case of excess tax payment, zero-rated supplies, deemed exports, or unutilised ITC. Section 29(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that when the...

[CGST Act] Absence Of Document Identification Number Doesn't Render Assessment Orders Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that absence of document identification number doesn't render assessment orders void.The bench consists of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Sumathi Jagadam were addressing the issue where the assessee/petitioner has challenged the assessment orders passed against him. The main ground for challenge is the lack of a Document Identification Number on the orders, passed by the assessing officers.The assessee submitted that the instructions issued by the Central Board...

State Gains Revenue Only If Businesses Operate; Cancelling GST Registration On Procedural Grounds Serve No Purpose: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court stated that the state gains revenue only if business operates; GST registration cancellation on procedural grounds serves no purpose. Justice Aniruddha Roy stated that the cancellation of GST registration of the assessee on the procedural ground would not enure any benefit either to the revenue authority or to the assessee. On the contrary, if the GST certificate stands restored and the assessee is allowed to carry on its business, the State can earn revenue to...

GST Dept Can't Probe Misuse Of GSTIN By Third Party, Power Lies With Economic Offences Wing: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allegations of misuse of a trader's GST identification number by a third party cannot be probed by the GST Department.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for certain offences which the GST Department can take cognizance of. However, the allegation here is that the GST number of the Petitioner has been misused by a third party, who is unknown. In the opinion of this Court,...

Department Can't Withhold Refund In Terms Of S.54(11) GST Act Unless Appeal Against Refund Order Is Filed: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power to withhold refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 cannot be exercised by the Department in absence of an appeal against the refund order.The provision stipulates that where an order giving rise to a refund is the subject matter of an appeal and the Commissioner is of the opinion that grant of such refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue, he may withhold the refund after giving an opportunity of...

Officer Appointed Under State GST Act Is Authorised To Discharge Duties As Proper Officer For IGST & CGST: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax Act will be Proper Officer under the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act as well as the Central Goods & Service Tax Act. Perusing Section 4 of the IGST Act read with rule 20 of the CGST Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held that “The provision provides that the Officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax is authorized to discharge their duties as Proper Officer for the...

'Total Non-Application Of Mind': Delhi High Court On Dept's Rejection Of Trader's Plea For GST Cancellation, Subsequent Cancellation Order

The Delhi High Court recently expressed its disapproval with the GST Department for rejecting a trader's application for retrospective cancellation of his GST registration on medical grounds, and later cancelling his registration with retrospective effect.Stating that this approach reflects a “complete non-application of the mind”, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain directed the Department to adjudicate both the issues afresh. It observed,“Clearly, the Petitioner...

[GST] 'Ill-Advice From Unqualified Consultants Leading To Clients' Inability To Appear Before Authorities': Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a circular urging assessees to engage only qualified consultants for GST compliance. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that, "This Court comes across similar instances in several cases, extending ill advice to the clients by the consultants, who are all not qualified persons. Such kind of ill-advice leads to the fact that the clients are not in a position to appear before the Officers concerned with suitable reply supported by...

Mere Delay In Uploading Demand Order On GST Portal Doesn't Make Action Time Barred If Service Via Email Is Proved: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that usually there is a gap between the passing of a demand order by the GST Department and uploading of Form DRC-07 (summary of order) on the official portal.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain however refused to infer such a gap as rendering the demand order time-barred, in view of the fact that the demand was served upon the assessee in question via email.The bench observed,“Prima-facie this Court is of the opinion that e-mail...

[GST] Reverse Charge Mechanism Notifications Denying ITC To Service Providers Are Constitutionally Valid: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that RCM notifications denying ITC credit to service providers are constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The bench opined that in case of RCM, the person receiving the services, i.e. the recipient pays the tax and can claim credit of the same. The provider of service is exempt from paying tax. Merely because persons covered by RCM cannot claim credit of ITC cannot be seen in a microscopic way to hold the ...

Limitation To Claim GST Refund Begins From Date Of Correct Tax Payment: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court held that limitation for GST refund in wrong head ceases computed from correct payment date. Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Shailendra Singh after reading Section 77 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 19 of the IGST Act opined that the relevant date for counting the period of limitation would start from the date when the assessee had deposited the tax under IGST Act. It is the case of the petitioner/assessee that for the financial year 2017-18, the ...