Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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