Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 160 on cancellation of registration without issuance of SCN

GST Update No 160 on cancellation of registration without issuance of SCN
The provision in GST law regarding cancellation of registration by the revenue authorities for non-filing of GST returns for continuous period of 6 months is draconian as GST registrations are cancelled even in cases where the assessee had filed belated returns. Moreover, it is observed that often the decision of cancellation of registration is taken without following the prescribed procedure such as issuance of show cause notice. It is well established principle of Law that the principle of natural justice is mandatorily required to be followed for passing a valid and legitimate order. The issue regarding cancellation of registration without considering the reply of the assessee was recently raised before the hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of LATIKA GHOSH VS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. The decision imparted in this case is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner filed a Writ Application and prayed for interim relief for restoration of certificate of registration and issuing Writ of Mandamus. The revenue authorities issued a show cause notice on 06.06.2018 wherein it was proposed to cancel the certificate of registration on the grounds that the petitioner have not filed returns for a continuous period of 6 months. However, the appellant filed their pending returns as soon as the notice was received along with payment of tax, late fee and interest. On 08.02.2021, revenue authorities cancelled the registration and reference was made to show cause notice dated 06.06.2018. The Counsel for the petitioner argued that a show cause notice dated 02.12.2019 was issued proposing cancellation of registration. To this, the petitioner argued that the said notice was never uploaded on the portal. Further, on 11.09.2021 departmental authorities issued show cause for rejection of revocation application of cancellation since appellant failed to pay late fee for the period from 2017 to 2021 along with interest. The petitioner submitted they had filed reply as on 12.09.2021. However, the application of revocation was rejected finally on 06.10.2021. The counsel of the department argued that order for cancellation of registration was passed on 06.10.2021 since no specific prayer was sought by the appellant in the writ application. The Court held that order for cancellation of registration passed on 08.02.2021, violated the principles of natural justice. Further, the contention raised by department as regards to the fact that no specific prayer was sought is incorrect. It was stated that the department did not indicate to the appellant as to how the computation of late fee and interest for the aforesaid period is incorrect. Therefore, the order of cancellation of registration is not tenable. The authorities were directed to restore the GST registration and issue a show cause notice to the petitioner in case of shortfall in payment of late fee. It is submitted that there have been numerous decisions rendered on the issue that registration cannot be cancelled in case of violation of principles of natural justice. Reference to the said judicial pronouncements is as follows:- • C.B. GAUTAM V/S UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS • TURRET INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PVT. LTD. V/S UNION OF INDIA • VIVAA TRADECOM PVT. LTD. V/S STATE OF GUJARAT • TATA STEEL BSL LTD. V/S UNION OF INDIAs It is submitted that in the garb of exercising the discretion to cancel registration on account of non-filing of returns by the assessee and not restoring the same, the revenue authorities are infact contributing to loss of revenue to the government. Time and again, the revenue authorities are directed to adhere to the principle of natural justice by passing order only after granting an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayers so that fair judgments can be imparted failing which it will result into abuse of power and harassment of the taxpayers.
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