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 ...

[S.169 CGST Act] Service On Registered Email Is Sufficient For Calculating Limitation Period: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 service on registered email is sufficient service for the purpose of limitation. It held that holding that service was to be made by more than one modes would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the provision. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held “Upon perusal of Section 169 of the Act, we are of the view that in the event the service is made by...

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Trader Who Missed Personal Hearing After Failing To Check GST Portal

The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with a GST demand raised against a trader, who failed to either appear for personal hearing or even file a reply.Though the trader sought to contend that reply could not be filed as he is not a frequent visitor to the GST portal, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar said,“It is a matter of practice of the GST Department that the notices for personal hearing and notices for replies to be filed are all uploaded on the...

Failure To Notify GST Commissioner About Partner's Retirement Makes Ex-Partner Liable For Firm's GST: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that failure to notify commissioner of partner's retirement makes former partner liable for firm's GST. Section 90 of the CGST Act, 2017 extends the liability in case of partnership firm to its partners as well. Justices Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma stated that “intimation of retirement of partner has to be given to the Commissioner by notice in writing and that in case, no such intimation is given within one month from the date of...

Trader Can't Be Labelled Defaulter Over Unpaid Demand During Pendency Of GST Appeal, After Making Pre-Deposit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi HIgh Court has held that once a trader prefers an appeal against a demand raised by the GST Department and makes the mandatory pre-deposit, the demand order is automatically stayed and the trader cannot be treated as a defaulter.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted relief to the Petitioner-proprietorship firm and directed the Department to process its request for a fresh GST registration.Briefly, Petitioner had a GST registration in...

Phrase 'Three Months' U/S 73(2) GST Act Means Three Calendar Months, Not 90 Days: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the 'three months' period prior to expiry of three years within which show cause notice for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit must be issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, means three calendar months and not 90 days.Under Section 73, SCN is issued to an assessee for determination of tax not paid or short paid. The Proper Officer is required to issue a SCN, specifically mentioning the reason(s) and the circumstances why the provision has been set...