GST Order Must Disclose Factual Basis For Statutory Ingredients, Not Merely Reproduce Provision: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an adjudication order invoking Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act must disclose the factual basis on which the statutory ingredients of the provision are said to have been satisfied.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar observed that mere reproduction of the statutory language, without supporting particulars, would not demonstrate the requisite application of mind.It thus set aside an order confirming a...

Supplier's GST Default Cannot Automatically Trigger ITC Reversal: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 1 October, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be mechanically reversed merely because a supplier failed to deposit GST with the Government or because the supplier's registration was subsequently cancelled, including retrospectively. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor upheld the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, which makes actual payment of tax to the Government a condition for claiming ITC....

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...