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 336 on revocation application rejected without considering the facts is unsustainable.

GST Update No 336 on revocation application rejected without considering the facts is unsustainable.
The revenue authorities fail to take into consideration the replies of taxpayers and hence take actions against them on the basis of arbitrary grounds. Resultantly, the Courts have stepped forward in various cases and bash the tax authorities on taking such adverse actions against the assessee without affording them an opportunity of hearing. On similar parameters, one case was reported before Calcutta High Court in the case of Swarupa Ghosh V/s Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of our present update.

The petitioner filed the Writ petition challenging the rejection of revocation application which were dismissed on the grounds of availability of alternate remedy. In the present case, show cause notice was issued as on 23.08.2021 to cancel the registration on the grounds that there was contravention of Section 29 of CGST Act, 2017. The reply of the same was submitted and order for cancellation was passed on 01.09.2021 which was devoid of reasons. An application of revocation was filed on 03.11.2021 and the registration was restored. The petitioner proposed to shift his place of business and hence, an application for cancellation of registration was submitted on 03.11.2021. However, the authority rejected the application by an order dated 25.11.2021 since balance sheet and profit and loss were not submitted as per the notice. On same date, another notice for cancellation of registration was issued alleging that the appellant obtained registration by means of fraud. The reply of the same was submitted on 02.12.2021 requesting to provide necessary documents to submit proper reply. Written submissions were submitted and hearing was fixed on 07.12.2021 on which the authority failed to provide any document and registration cancellation proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, second time registration cancellation application was filed. Once again, a show cause notice was issued to appellant to provide various details. The registration was cancelled as on 20.12.2021.

The appellant submitted that the cancellation order was passed in the midnight. Thereafter, another show cause notice was received on 21.12.2021 in the midnight for cancellation of GST registration which narrated that adverse report was attached. However, upon checking, no reports were attached along with the notice and were subsequently received on 28.12.2021. An e-mail was sent by petitioner at 2:47 p.m. seeking time to submit reply. The registration was cancelled without offering an opportunity of hearing as on 28.12.2021. A revocation application was filed on 17.01.2022 and a show cause notice was issued in this respect on 16.02.2022 for which detailed reply was submitted on 19.02.2022. However, the application was rejected by order dated 21.03.2022. The Single Bench dismissed the petition on the grounds of availability of alternate remedy.

The Court upon perusal of material placed before them observed that the order passed by adjudicating authority is devoid of reasons and none of the grounds raised by the petitioner were adhered to. It was narrated that it is not clear as to why department is dragging the matter unnecessarily. Even if there is any adverse material, the same should have been communicated along with the show cause notice along with providing an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order. The Commissioner should take a note of the way the cases are dealt with by the subordinate authorities special regarding cancellation of registration. Further, an orientation programme should also be conducted to sensitize the manner in which cases like these should be dealt with. Since the enactment in which they are functioning is totally new the officer should be trained properly and a copy of order should be placed before Commissioner as well. Since in the present case there is violation of principles of natural justice and non-speaking order is passed by the authorities, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the lower authorities. It had directed them to issue a proper show cause notice mentioning the allegations against the appellant and granting a period of 15 days to submit the reply.

The above decision is another example demonstrating the lack of proper training on the part of revenue officers as regards to issuance of appropriate show cause notice failing which results into quashing of entire adjudication proceedings. It is high time that the tax authorities should act judiciously and thereafter issue proper show cause notices otherwise the tussle between the department and taxpayers will continue in times to come.
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