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 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