Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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