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 ON CONDONATION ON DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL

GST UPDATE ON CONDONATION ON DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL
Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 says that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by adjudication officer under this act or the state goods and services tax act or the union territory goods and services tax act can file the appeal within the time limit of 3 months from the date of communication of the impugned order. Furthermore, the Appellate authority may condone a delay of up to one month, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for such delay as per subsection (4) of above referred section ibid. However, in the view of the Covid 19 situation, the Supreme Court has also issued an order dated 23rd March 2020 declaring that the period from 15th March 2020 till further orders, shall not be taken into consideration for counting the period of limitation prescribed under any general or special laws. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has used the term ‘shall stand extended’ which means that in cases where the limitation period for filing an appeal expires on or after 15th March 2020, then in such cases, the due date for filing an appeal shall stand extended till further order/s of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Central Government has also given relaxation to the taxpayers for various compliances under the GST laws. The Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 came into effect on 31st March 2020. The Ordinance inserted Section 168A empowers the Central Government to extend the time limit specified/ prescribed under the CGST Act, 2017, in respect of actions which cannot be completed or complied due to Force Majeure. The explanation to Section 168A defines the term ‘Force Majeure’ and enlists several calamities including, ‘epidemic’, which can affect the implementation of any provision of the Act in to effect on 31st March 2020. The Central Government, exercising its power under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, vide Notification No. 35/2020-CT dated 03.04.2020, granted general extension for compliance under the CGST Act, 2017, IGST Act, 2017 and UTGST CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??6 Act, 2017. Extension were given to appeals which were due to be filed between 20th March, 2020 to 29th June, 2020, can be filed till June 30, 2020. Similarly, in view of second wave of COVID-19, appeal period was extended and appeal period expiring from April 15, 2021 to June 29, 2021 was extended to June 30, 2021 by notification number 14/2021- Central tax dated May 1, 2021. Now the controversy arose whether this notification extending the time limit only to June 30, 2021 is legally binding as they are going against the impugned Apex Court decision. Orissa HC also in case of M/s. Shree Udyog has passed order that GST Appellate Authority shall condone delay in Filing Appeal due to COVID-19 where the appellant failed to file certified copy of order appeal against within specified time limit due to the reason that representative was suffering from Covid -19. The court set aside the order of rejection of appeal on the grounds of delay and stands the appeal restored. In the cases where both Notification No. 35/2020-CT dated 03.04.2020 as well as notification number 14.2021- CT dated May 1, 2021 do not help person the order of Supreme Court can be of certain help as it provides that the limitation period with respect to any appeal/ application stands extended upto June 30, 2020 or June 30, 2021. Thus, the aggrieved person can argue that order of Supreme Court will prevail over any other law for the time being in force. Thus the assesses who are facing trouble in filing appeal due to current prevailing situation of pandemic take the advantage of relaxation by Supreme Court. This order has again been followed by Orissa High Court. Many appeals could not be filed due to this COVID pandemic, hence landmark decision of Highest Court of India is of great help to all the taxpayers. Moreover, no relaxations were given in second wave to service tax appeals though many show cause notices were decided and appeal is to be filed. But consultant could not file the same due to this unwarranted situation. Hence, these landmark judgments is of great help to taxpayers.

Post a Comment
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