High Court
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...
[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....
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."...
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...
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 ...
Notification Cannot Be Given Retrospective Effect To Deny Refund On Unutilised ITC Claimed Within Limitation Period: Madras HC Allows Gillette's Plea
Finding that the refund claim was filed within two years from the “relevant date” as defined in Explanation 2(a) to Section 54(14) of CGST Act , the Madras High Court recently clarified that a refund claim cannot be denied on the basis of retrospective operation of the Proviso to Rule 90(3) pf the CGST Rules.The High Court clarified this upon finding that the refund claims filed in the portal on Sep 21, 2018, Oct 09, 2018 and Oct 10, 2018, were within two years from the date of exports made...
Proceedings U/S 129 Of GST Act Are Summary Proceedings, Burden To Prove Actual Movement Of Goods Lies On Assesee: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act are summary proceedings where the burden to prove the actual physical movement of goods is on the assesee transporting the goods. It further held that authorities have the power to seize goods on grounds of undervaluation.Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Under the taxing statute, in the original proceeding or in the summary proceeding, the primary burden is to be discharged by the assessee by bringing on record the...
Error By Supplier In Mentioning GSTN Of Trader Can't Form Basis To Reject ITC On Purchases: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court recently came to the rescue of a Company engaged in the sale of various pharmaceutical products and medical devices, holding that it could not be denied Input Tax Credit on purchases merely because its supplier had mentioned a wrong GST number on the invoices.In the facts of the case, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,“The only basis for rejecting the ITC is the mention of the Bombay office GSTN instead of the Delhi office GSTN....
Notice Under Rule 142(1)(A) Of CGST Rules Must Be Issued Before Issuing Proper SCN: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that a notice under Rule 142(1)(A) of CGST Rules must be issued before issuing proper show cause notice. The Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and K Manmadha Rao was addressing a case where notice under Rule-142(1)(A) of the CGST Rules was not issued to the assessees/petitioners, prior to the Orders of assessment. The assessees have challenged the orders of assessment before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The assessee submitted...
Carbonated Fruit Drinks Qualify As Fruit Beverages, Taxable At 12% GST: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court stated that carbonated fruit drinks qualify as fruit beverages and are taxable at 12% GST. The Bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia opined that “where the subject product contains soluble solids and fruit content as per the report of the State Food Laboratory, it cannot be said to be akin to water, mineral water or aerated water. Mere presence of carbon dioxide or carbonated water cannot be treated to classify the subject items under water or carbonated water. The ...