Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE No 159 ON CHALLENGING SCN BY WRIT PETITION

GST UPDATE No 159 ON CHALLENGING SCN BY WRIT PETITION
The taxation statue prescribes a mechanism for the assessee to defend their case whenever demand is raised against them. The hierarchy of litigation in GST law is issuance of show cause notice for adjudication of the case leading to passing of order in original. Appeal may be filed before the first appellate authority, i.e., Commissioner Appeals against the order in original by the person aggrieved with the said order. The Commissioner Appeals pass Order in Appeal, deciding the appeal filed before it which can be further appealed to the Tribunal constituted under the statue. Thereafter, the appeals may be preferred to High Court and finally to the Supreme Court. Every assessee is required to pass this stipulated channel in order to get justice. Now, the question arises is whether it is permissible for the assessee to knock the doors of High Court at the show cause notice stage itself? This issue was recently dealt with by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of SRI RAJENDRA NARAYAN MOHANTY V/S CT GST CUTTACK. The analysis of this decision is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner received TDS for the months October 2018, November 2018, January 2019, February 2019 and March 2019 for the Financial Year 2018-19. However, tax liability was not discharged by them because “NIL” liability was disclosed by the petitioner while filing GSTR-3B. The petitioner submitted that while filing Annual Return as on 20.12.2020 for FY 18-19, correct figures were disclosed by them. The petitioner contended that the proper officer restricted them from availing input tax credit from their credit ledger and submitted that instruction cannot have overriding effect over provisions of statue. Further, the petitioner contended that the proper officer has no jurisdiction to invoke provisions in the present case. Therefore, writ petition is filed in the High Court by the petitioner without filing reply to the show cause notice. The High Court held that the petitioner filed writ petition without replying to the objections raised in the show cause notice and thus, writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA V/S COASTAL CONTAINER TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION wherein it was held that writ petition will not be entertained in case alternate remedy is available under statue. The Court held that the petitioner ought to have responded to the show cause notice and follow a proper channel before approaching the High Court. The petitioner during the course of hearing submitted that although input credit is utilized against payment of output tax but no interest is paid against delayed payment. The Court ordered petitioner to file reply within a period of 15 days and directed the proper officer to pass appropriate order after considering the submissions made by the petitioner. We all are aware that as the GST Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted till date, the High Courts are already flooded with petitions. Moreover, the burden of litigation in High Courts is substantial and so petitions cannot be preferred to High Courts for taxation matters wherein hierarchy of litigation is pre-defined. However, we all know that exceptions are always there and High Courts have exercised their discretionary powers many times for serving justice to the assesses. In this context, reference may be made to the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX VERSUS COMMERCIAL STEEL LTD. [2021 (52) G.S.T.L. 385 (S.C.)] wherein it has been held that the High Court has power to exercise writ jurisdiction in the following circumstances-breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or challenge to the vires of the statue or delegated legislation. The High Courts refuse to grant any relief in cases other than the exceptions as stated and directs the assessee to follow the prescribed dispute channel as prescribed in the Statue. Similarly, reference may be made to the following judicial pronouncements wherein the view of the High Court regarding dismissal of writ petition in case of availability of statutory alternate remedy was upheld:- • R.K. ANGANGBI SINGH V. COMMISSIONER – [2016 (332) E.L.T. A247 (S.C.)] • VISHNU & COMPANY PVT. LTD. V. SUPERINTENDENT – [2016 (332) E.L.T. A141 (S.C.)] • UNION OF INDIA VERSUS RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD. [2015 (326) E.L.T. 232 (S.C.)] • GENERAL CEMENT PRODUCTS LTD. V. COMMISSIONER – [2015 (323) E.L.T. A21 (S.C.)] • [SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED V. UNION OF INDIA - 2015 (321) E.L.T. A208 (S.C.)] The above decisions clearly indicate that the assessee should be cautious while filing writ petitions against show cause notice because High Courts entertain writs only if the case is covered by exceptional circumstances. Filing writ petition without filing reply to the show cause notice has the inherent risk of expiry of the time limit for filing reply. Therefore, the decision of challenging show cause notice by way of filing writ petition should be exercised judiciously.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com