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 187 on physical verification without knowledge of taxpayer

GST update No 187 on physical verification without knowledge of taxpayer
Registration contributes significantly towards increasing the revenue base of the government. Recently, CBIC issued a Notification No. 62/2020- Central Tax dated 20.08.2020, and directed the filed officers to carry out physical verification of the premises of the businesses which were granted registration between 21st Aug to 16th Nov to ascertain the genunity and intention behind undertaking a transaction. However, looking at the other side of the story, it is quite disheartening that the revenue authorities cancel the registration of the taxpayers on frivolous and vague grounds without even providing an opportunity of hearing to them. On similar lines, one such issue was raised before Delhi High Court in the case of M/S MICRO FOCUS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V/S UNION OF INDIA. The decision imparted in this respect is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner filed writ petition against the order of cancellation of registration dated 09.12.2020 and furthermore, rejected application of revocation of registration dated 18.02.2021. The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 11.11.2020 since the business of the petitioner was dysfunctional at the given address. From Dec, 2019, the petitioner company discontinued its business but it did not apply for registration suo-moto since credit notes pertaining to the FY 2020-21 were issued against supply made upto Dec, 2019. Further, to amend incorrect details reported in GSTR filed during FY 2019-20, to furnish GSTR-9 and 9C for FY 2017-18/2018-19 due to extended due dates and filing of refund claims. The Counsel of Petitioner argued that there was violation of principles of natural justice on the part of revenue authorities since as per Rule 25 of the CGST Rules, 2017, notice has to be CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??5 given to the petitioner before carrying out any physical verification of the premises which was not given to the petitioner. Furthermore, no heed was paid to the communication dated 12.11.2020 by the petitioner for grant of extension of time. The reply of petitioner was also not taken into consideration while passing the order. It was also contended that the physical verification report was not submitted even after order dated 09.12.2020 was passed. The Counsel of respondent argued that opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner show cause notice in this respect was already issued. However, since no response was received the order was passed accordingly. Further, it was argued that even if order is passed without opportunity of haring, petitioner should have relegated to alternate remedy. The Court held that the no reference of reasons was made in the order passed by the departmental authorities. Furthermore, the show cause notice issued contains reason to show cause as to why registration should not be cancelled and revocation application should not be rejected. It was held that as per Rule 25 of CGST Rules, 2017, requires physical presence of the person whose property is being inspected, which was not in the present case. It was therefore, directed to departmental authorities revive the registration of the petitioner and to petitioner to apply for de-registration suo-moto after completing the return filing formalities. The above decision is yet another example of the subject that any order passed without providing opportunity of hearing is void and baseless. There had been various cases in pre and post GST regime wherein the rulings were imparted in favour of the business houses in case of violation of principles of natural justice. It is high time that revenue authorities should understand the importance of this principle rather than turning a blind eye failing which will lead to increase in the unwanted litigations. Further, the Government should also take strict steps to ensure that the lacuna in affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee for defending their case is resolved at the earliest possible to save the precious time of court.
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