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 342 on uploading order on GST portal is sufficient compliance

GST Update No 342 on uploading order on GST portal is sufficient compliance
The debate and discussion as regards to cancellation of registration has touched the sky and has increased manifolds. There had been catena of cases wherein the High Courts have adopted a lenient approach and ordered for restoration of registration. However, it appears that the revenue authorities are reluctant enough to follow this principle in various cases. Looking at the other side of the coin, the taxpayers are also lethargic to prefer an appeal against the cancellation order in a timely manner. Recently, one such case was also reported before Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/S YASH KRISHI SEVA KENDRA V/S STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.

The petitioner being a sole proprietor filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India and prayed to set aside the impugned order for cancellation of registration. It was contended that the Joint Commissioner has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal being time barred. It was further argued that neither the show cause notice was issued as on 16.05.2018 not the order for cancellation of registration as on 04.03.2022 was communicated to them. Hence, no appeal could be preferred further. A rejoinder was submitted by petitioner placing reliance on a decision dated 25.02.2022 in a bunch of W.P. Nos. 21978/2019 by a Co-ordinate bench wherein an opportunity of preferring an appeal was given to assessee due to non-communication of order.

The counsel for the respondent submitted that show cause notice dated 16.05.2018 and order for cancellation of registration dated 06.06.2018 both were uploaded on the portal in terms of Section 169 of CGST Act, 2107.Hence, once the show cause notice and order for cancellation of registration is served on the portal, the same was available to the petitioner to be downloaded for the purpose of filing appeal. The relied upon documents were also submitted by the revenue department in support of their contentions. Further, reference to Section 169 of CGST Act, 2017 was also made wherein uploading of documents are mandatory to be served on portal. Hence, since the petitioner was well aware of the servicing of show cause notice and order on the portal, they cannot take advantage of the same. The ultimate liability is of petitioner only and therefore, no one else can be blamed.

The issue under consideration is non-communication of order to the petitioner within the period of limitation and hence, the petitioner was deprived of alternate remedy of appeal. The Court observed that revenue has communicated the order of cancellation of registration to the petitioner therein and hence, the period of limitation shall be counted from the date of knowledge of the impugned order and not from the date of communication. The present situation is different from the decision on which reliance is placed by the petitioner. Since the revenue department adhered to the provisions of Section 169 of CGST Act, 2017, they are nowhere at fault. Further, it was held that a show cause notice was also sent to petitioner on the mobile number as well as e-mail address. Hence the appeal filed by petitioner is time barred and the period of limitation cannot be extended further. The Court cannot divert from the statutory provisions and therefore, the petition is dismissed.

The above decision is a setback for the trade and industry showcasing the fact that now the assessees need to be more vigilant and cautious in exercising the statutory right of filing an appeal. There had been cases in the past as well wherein the order was delivered over the e-mail ID or portal which were recognised as a valid mode of servicing. The taxpayers should pay attention to all these judicial precedents and then only take necessary action otherwise the precious time of Courts will be wasted.
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