Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 296 on time period to file appeal starts from date of uploading the order

GST Update No 296 on time period to file appeal starts from date of uploading the order
The issue regarding filing of appeal within prescribed time period is exposed to litigations since digitization introduced in GST regime. In the erstwhile indirect tax regime, the period of limitation started from the date of receipt of certified copy of order but in the GST regime, the order is deemed to have been received by the assessee on the date on which it is being uploaded on the GST portal. However, the revenue authorities have not been accustomed to the digitization of appeal mechanism and often dispute the appeals on the grounds of limitation such as starting date to be treated as date on which order was physically delivered or e-mail sent. Resultantly, assessee has to knock the doors of courts to seek relief. Recently, one more case was reported before Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of NAVYA FOODS (P) LTD. V/S SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX wherein the appeal was rejected as time barred. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.
The petitioner filed Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in manufacture of jams, fruit jellies etc. and is registered under CGST Act, 2017. It was noticed upon verification that the GSTR-3B filed during the FY 2018-19 were filed beyond the due date and therefore, interest is to be paid on delayed payment under CGST/SGST/IGST. Therefore, interest along with penalty was demanded. A show cause notice in this respect was issued as on 25.04.2019 and thereafter an assessment order was passed dated 15.11.2019 confirming the levy of interest and penalty which was higher than proposed in show cause notice. It was observed that the order was served physically to the assessee on 25.11.2019.
The petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected on 30.07.2021 on the groundthat it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The counsel of petitioner submitted that in accordance with Rule 142 of CGST Rules, 2017, summary of the order issued under Section 73 shall be uploaded electronically specifying the amount demanded from the assessee. Accordingly, the summary order was uploaded on 18.11.2021 and hence, the period of limitation shall be reckoned from that date. Reliance in this respect was placed on decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LIMITED V/S UNION OF INDIA.
The counsel of respondent opposed the submissions of petitioner and argued that the reason of rejection is not lack of material instead ground of limitation and hence, the argument of petitioner that no appeal could be filed cannot be accepted. However, it was further submitted that in view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation, it is on the discretion of Court to pass appropriate orders.
The Court referred to the provisions of CGST Act and CGST Rules, 2017. It was crystal clear that the appeal is required to be filed in an electronic mode or any other prescribe mode as notified by way of notification. However, any other mode has not been prescribed till date. Therefore, the arguments of petitioner that time period for filing appeal would start only when the order is uploaded in GST portal cannot be side-lined. Reference was drawn to decision of Gujarat High Court and suo-moto order of Supreme Court of extension of period of limitation. It was further stated that the order was sent by e-mail to the petitioner on 25.11.2019 and period of three months’ time would expire on 24.2.2020 and another one month from there would be on 24.3.2020. Therefore, it was stated that the appeal filed by petitioner is within time if the extension order of Supreme Court is made applicable. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and case is remanded back for adjudicating the dispute on merits as per law.
The above decision affirms that the period of limitation shall commence when the order is uploaded on the GST portal. Furthermore, Section 169 of CGST Act, 2017 recognises communication by e-mail on the registration application of the taxpayer and service of order on common portal as valid methods of service of notice to the taxpayer. Reference can be drawnto the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of M/S PEE BEE ENTERPRISES V/S ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER wherein it was affirmed that making order available on the common portal or mailing the order to the registered mail id of the taxpayer is proper service of order to the taxpayer. We have even discussed the same in GST updates number 124/2020-21 dated 27.8.2020. Nevertheless, there are various issues in the practical life wherein the taxpayers create a separate mailing ID for the purpose of GST registration and they fail to check the same on regular basis. Consequently, the taxpayers miss taking actions against the notices and orders mailed to them. Therefore, it is high time that the taxpayers realise that they should regularly check their e-mails and GST portal to keep track record of any notices/orders otherwise they will have to fight the battle of litigation to seek relief.
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