Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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