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 239 on dismissal of appeal for non-submission of certified order

GST update No 239 on dismissal of appeal for non-submission of certified order

It is well settled that “Justice delayed is Justice denied” so the revenue authorities should take appropriate course of action within reasonable time if there are any procedural infractions of law. It is frequently observed that the assessees are made to suffer and forgo the substantial benefit due to technical lapses which are being pointed out by the department after considerable period of time and if such lacunae is related to filing of appeal which is a time bound affair, the assessee is being deprived of its right to defend his case. Similar issue was reported before Orissa High Court in the case of M/S ATLAS PVC PIPES LIMITED V/S STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS wherein the question raised was regarding the admissibility of appeal if the certified copy of order was not submitted. The present update seeks to give a detailed analysis of the decision imparted.

 

The petitioner is engaged in supply of pipes and proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of OGST Act, 2017. An appeal was therefore filed by them wherein although the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit was complied with, but certified copy of order along with appeal memo was not submitted. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice dated 13.05.2022 regarding furnishing the certified copy of order was served to the petitioner on 20.05.2022 and the requirement of furnishing certified copy of impugned order was to be fulfilled by 21.05.2022. Since the office was closed on 22.05.2022 being Sunday, the copy was furnished as on 23.05.2022 which was not accepted subsequently by the revenue department on the grounds that order rejecting the appeal was already passed and uploaded on the GST portal. Therefore, this made the appellant remedy-less. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of SHREE JAGANNATH TRADERS V/S COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, ODISHA. It was further argued that liberal approach should have been followed by the appellate authority taking into consideration the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Further, it was submitted that the appellate authority should have verified the date of service of notice being 13.05.2022 before passing order dated 23.05.2022 rejecting the appeal memo. Moreover, it is not clear from the material on record as to whether the authority had informed the appellant about the next date of proceedings or not. It was also submitted that in the present scenario, the appellant should get benefit of suo-moto extension of period of limitation.

 

The Counsel of respondent argued that since the petitioner took step to obtain certified copy of order as on 21.05.2022 only being the last day of submission in accordance with provisions of Section 108 of OGST Act, 2017, the departmental authority has committed no irregularity and adhered to the principles of natural justice.

 

The Court observed that the present appeal is filed within the time limit prescribed for filing appeal after taking into account the extended limitation period ordered by the Apex Court. Further, it was held that in accordance with Rule 108 of CGST Rules, 2017, there is no provision of restricting application of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to the present case. It was held that non-submission of certified copy of order is merely a procedural requirement and therefore, it should be treated merely as a technical defect. It was stated that the appellate authority erred in discharging its responsibility appropriately by dismissing the appeal on the above-mentioned grounds. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and it was directed to petitioner to appear before adjudicating authority and furnish the copy of certified order.

 

 The above decision is yet another example wherein it was held that the substantial benefit is not to be denied to the assessee merely because of procedural lapses. It is worth mentioning here that the subject matter under discussion had its roots in the erstwhile GST regime as well. To illustrate, in the case of SHREE JAGANNATH TRADERS V/S COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX ODISHA, the same Court held that appeal cannot be dismissed for want of certified copy of order. Although, the justice-oriented approach of the Court is quite commendable, yet, the subordinate authorities should follow these Judicial Rulings to save the precious time and cost incurred by the appellants to put an end to unwanted litigations. 

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