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 269 on right of filing appeal after voluntary payment of GST/penalty

GST Update No 269 on right of filing appeal after voluntary payment of GST/penalty
It is well known that filing of appeal by the taxpayer is statutory and substantive right wherein intention of legislation is to grant relief to the aggrieved. Yet, the revenue authorities time and again harass the taxpayers by not admitting and deciding the appeal filed by the taxpayers. One case on similar lines was recently reported before the hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/S HINDUSTAN STEEL AND CEMENT [W.P. NO. 17454 OF 2022] wherein the departmental authorities opined that all the proceedings stand concluded and no further appeal can be filed by taxpayer in case any payment is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017. The analysis of the decision is subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner opted to make payment in terms of provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 to release the seized goods/conveyance. On payment of the same, the goods and the conveyance were released by issuing Form GST MOV-05 and an order was issued under Form MOV-09. However, a summary order was not issued in DRC07. Consequently, no appeal could be filed under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017. It was submitted that as per Section 129 of the Act and Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13.04.2018, the order in Form MOV-09 should be accompanied by Summary order under DRC-07. Without this, no appeal can be filed since system accepts an appeal only if summary order in DRC-07 is issued. The Counsel of revenue argued that in case assessee opts to pay tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, the proceedings are deemed to be concluded. It was further contended that the payment is made voluntarily in DRC-03 by the taxpayer and thus, cannot be refunded back. Further, on payment the entire proceedings should be treated as concluded. Reference was drawn to CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??5 Rule 142 of CGST Rules, 2017 wherein the concerned person seeks to continue the proceedings by opting a bank guarantee under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 meaning thereby that the proceedings cannot be deemed t be concluded. It was argued that no proceedings under DRC-07 can be initiated if in case payment is made voluntarily. The provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 do not make a distinction between the persons who opt to provide security and who opts to make payment under Section 129 of the Act. The Court held that whether the aggrieved chooses to make payment under Section 129 of the Act or provide security in terms of Section 129 of the Act, the officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyance has to issue a notice specifying tax and penalty. Therefore, the responsibility of concerned officer to issue and upload the summary order in DRC-07 continues. It was stated that the proceedings can be challenged by the concerned taxpayer if demand is illegally raised on him. Failing this will result into violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Further, appeal can be preferred within a period of 3 months from the date on which such order or decision is communicated to the aggrieved person. It was therefore held that the payment of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the Act does not deprives the right of assessee to file an appeal. The fact that the system does not generate a demand or contemplates filing of appeal without demand does not means that the intention of the legislature was different. It was directed to the SGST department to issue an appropriate Circular in this respect to avoid any future litigations on the subject matter. The above decision is a welcoming initiative wherein the already settled subject matter is upheld that the right of filing appeal is statutory right of the assessee which cannot be deprived on frivolous grounds. The revenue authorities cannot refrain from issuing an order even if the tax amount along with interest and penalty stands deposited by the taxpayer voluntarily as without issuance of order, the right of appeal of the taxpayer is being compromised which is not the intention of the legislature. It is hoped that the revenue authorities proactively follow the settled principles of law so as to avoid any unwanted litigations in the future.
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