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 202 ON DEPOSIT OF TAX DURING SEARCH & SEIZURE

GST UPDATE No 202 ON DEPOSIT OF TAX DURING SEARCH & SEIZURE
It is customary for the departmental officers to persuade assessees to deposit tax during the course of proceedings of search, seizure and inspection. The revenue authorities often adopt coercive and violent methods under the umbrella of earning revenue and making “recovery” which results in miseries of the businessman. The matter regarding deposit of tax during investigation proceedings has also travelled upto various High Courts. Consequently, CBIC released an Instruction No. 01/2022-23 [GST- Investigation] dated 25.05.2022 to ensure that there is no harassment of taxpayers with respect to tax deposition during investigation proceedings.
 
There had been various instances noted in the past wherein the taxpayers after voluntarily depositing GST liability through DRC-03 have alleged use of force and coercion by the officers for making “recovery” during search and seizure. It is observed that the taxpayers can voluntarily deposit the tax by logging in to the GST portal and submitting Form DRC-03 on the portal and discharging their self-ascertained liability.
 
Furthermore, as per Section 79 of CGST Act, 2017, the recovery proceedings can be initiated against the taxpayers only after following a legal process of issuing show cause notice and confirming the demand. Therefore, the CBIC finally released an instruction clarifying that there is no such circumstance wherein the “recovery” of liability can be undertaken during the course of search and seizure. However, there is no bar on the taxpayers for making voluntary payment of self-ascertained liability before or at any stage of initiation of recovery proceedings.
 
In line with the above, it is pertinent to mention here that there had been various judicial pronouncements as well in uniformity with the above instruction wherein the same view is being upheld by the High Courts. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following rulings:
·        Madras High Court in the case of M/s Shri Nandhi Dhall Mills India Private Limited V/s Senior Intelligence Officer, Madras High Court
·        Rajasthan High Courtin the case of M/s Dhariwal Products V/s Union of India
·        Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Bhumi Associate V/s Union of India
·        Telangana High Court in the case of M/s Deem Distributors Private Ltd. V/s Union of India
 
 
There are plethora of cases wherein the courts have held that the revenue authorities should follow the procedure prescribed u/s 70 of CGST Act, 2017 before initiating any investigation proceedings against the taxpayer. Further, the amount deposited is not to be considered as voluntary since the same is ordinarily done under coercion and pressure of the revenue authorities. The departmental authorities are bypassing the lawful procedure and trying to extract more money from the taxpayers under the façade of being voluntary deposit failing which the taxpayers are threatened of penal and arrest consequences. There had been various instances in practical life as well wherein the GST officials abuse their powers resulting into harassment of the taxpayers. All thanks to government for recognising the subject matter and releasing an instruction for the same clarifying the above burning issue so that now the revenue authorities would not be able to procure allegedly short paid GST by branding it to be voluntary payment during the search and seizure proceedings. The author of this update has also come across a situation where the DGCI officers have issued summon on 11.59 pm and amount of around one crore (available in taxpayer’s bank account) has been deposited by challan and amount was adjusted through DRC-03. Still it was contended that it was voluntary.  This action is a sigh of relief for the taxpayers. It is now expected that the revenue authorities will follow these instructions and understand the intent of legislation behind the same so that the litigations can be reduced to substantial levels thereby bringing clarity. Moreover, CBIC should be appreciated that it is clearly proposed in circular that disciplinary action should be taken against the officer who does not follow this circular. We should all appreciate the circular issued by CBIC following the High court directions.
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