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 328 on proceedings cannot be initiated by different wings for the same periodGST update no. 328 on rejection of appeal for not applying revocation

GST update No 328 on proceedings cannot be initiated by different wings for the same period
It is well established that the departmental officers under different wings cannot proceed towards initiating proceedings against the taxpayer. For instance, the tax demand cannot be raised by anti-evasion wing as well as GST audit wing simultaneously on the same facts and for the same tax period. However, it seems that this concept is diluted with time and the revenue authorities in the greed of increasing revenue base often issue unnecessary notices which results into harassment of the assesses. One case on similar subject matter travelled before Calcutta High Court in the case of M/S R.P.BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. V/S THE SUPERINTENDENT, CGST. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.
The appellant filed this appeal and prayed for Writ of Certiorari and Writ of Mandamus and to quash the notices issued by CGST Anti-evasion department for the Financial Year from 2017-18 to 2019-20 for which audit under Section 65 of CGST Act, 2017 has been conducted. It was argued further that the scrutiny of returns under section 61 of CGST Act, 2017 cannot be done once an audit under Section 65 of CGST Act, 2017 has been conducted by department for the same tax period. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the proceedings are in nature of show cause notice. Therefore, this writ petition is filed.
The Counsel of the petitioner submitted that 4 issues were pointed out for the said period out of which two issues pointed out by audit department were accepted by the appellant and tax and interest were remitted and for remaining two issues, the response was submitted by the appellant which were not concluded. Meanwhile the other two wings i.e. anti-evasion and range office also proceeded against the appellant by issuing notices for the
same period for which audit was already commenced.
The Counsel of respondent submitted that the three wings of department proceeded against the appellant because the range officer was not aware of the proceedings initiated by audit department and anti-evasion was also not aware of the same.
The Court observed that the three wings of the same department are proceeding against the applicant for the same tax period i.e. Financial Year 2017-18 to 2019-20. Firstly, the audit department had issued notice under section 65 of CGST Act, 2017, the details of which were furnished by the appellant dated 05.01.2022 for conducting GST audit. The Courts stated that it is not clear looking into the present situation as to why in the present days of electronic communication how parallel proceedings can be conducted by three wings of the same department for the same period. Therefore, in case audit is commenced, the same should be concluded first. The proceedings initiated by anti-evasion and range officer for the same period should not be proceeded further. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by Single Bench is set aside. Therefore, it was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order within the prescribed time. The second and third respondents are refrained from proceeding further in respect of same period for which already action is started for the Financial Years from 2017 to 2020.
The above favourable decision is a welcoming decision for trade and industry wherein it is upheld that parallel and simultaneous proceedings cannot be initiated against the assessee in respect of same facts and tax period. However, we have come across various situations in practical life wherein the departmental officers do not understand this fact and proceed towards issuing various notices be it audit or be it anti-evasion which increases the burden of the assesses. It is high time these judicial rulings should be followed at the earliest to avoid any further litigations in 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