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 164 on technical glitches on common portal

GST Update No 164 on technical glitches on common portal
GST Update No 164 on technical glitches on common portal India’s largest tax reform, the Goods and Service tax, was launched on 1st July 2017, it is yet to be fully put in place, all thanks to patchy technical implementation. More than 4 years down the line and after multiple policy updates, it still seems that not everything unfolded smoothly and as planned. Consequently, the Government scrambles to fix these glitches, the GST system also has failed to support last minute filing of returns, resulting in extension of deadlines continuously. Similarly, the common portal fails to display various show cause notices and correspondences with the revenue department. One such issue on the same line was raised in front of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pushpam Reality V/s State Tax Officer. The decision imparted is the subject matter of our present update. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition against assessment order seeking relief of Writ of Certiorari. The counsel of petitioner submitted that the impugned assessment orders were passed without proper show cause notice or giving adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, there was violation of principle of natural justice. The departmental representative argued that the notices were uploaded on the portal of the State Government and auto populated on the portal maintained by Central Government. Therefore, it was contended that submissions of petitioner are not tenable. Further, it was submitted that once notices are uploaded, information is available on the dashboard of the assessees. Moreover, departmental representative referred Section 169 of CGST Act, 2017 wherein it was held that notice served in any other manner is also sufficient. Reliance was placed on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Softouch Health Care Private Ltd. Vs. The State Tax Officer, 1st Circle, Department of State GST and Others. The Court analyzed Section 169 of CGST Act, 2017 and held that said section was sufficiently and duly complied with. It was stated that GST was implemented w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Since then, the portal is facing numerous problems on several occasions and accordingly, steps were also taken to fix these technical glitches. Till date the problems are arising on account of technical glitches out of inter communication between SGST and CGST. In such a scenario, it was finally ruled out that until and unless all the problems are resolved out, the revenue authorities may serve the notice of assessment and communications both through registered/ speed post along with acknowledgment and through web portal. Once all the problems are resolved, the practice of sending physical copy can be discontinued. The petitioner was directed to file a reply of show cause notice. And the respondents were directed to pass speaking order on merits within a period of 45 days from date of receipt of copy of this order. The above judgment is a favorable decision for the business community. With the advent of technology driven society, the business houses are constantly facing various challenges ranging from filing of returns to alignment of books and records to filing of replies of notices due to technical glitches on the portal. There had been plethora of judgments in the Court of Law in this regard. To illustrate in the case of M/s Bodal Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union Of India, Gujarat High Court held that department should allow filing of GSTR-6 and cannot raise hands in despair due to technical problems. The need of the hour is that the Government should fix these problems at the earliest possible resulting into a big boost of struggling business houses. Even the business community is also not so computer friendly. Moreover, the working of portal is also not known to taxpayers. We have come across a case where a big business house having good technical staff was not able to know that show cause notice was issued to them. This is due to the fac that notice was not uploaded in the section “Services”- “User Services”-“View Notices and Orders” but under “Services”- “User Services”- “View Additional Notices/Orders”. Now, taxpayer said that he was not knowing that show cause notice can either be uploaded in either of these two places in portal. He came to know about the same only after call from the department. Department was helpful in this instant case but it may proceed without communicating with taxpayer. Moreover, the small taxpayer do not see the e-mail id given in registration. Hence, Section 169 should be amended and physical copy of show cause notice should be made mandatory or at least there should be communication by way of mobile call should be made mandatory.
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