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 ON POWER OF ATTACHMENT TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY 123/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON POWER OF ATTACHMENT TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY 123/2020-21

The justification for granting wide powers to tax authorities regarding attachment of property of the taxpayer under the GST law has been contentious since inception. In our past updates also, we have discussed important judgments on legality of attachment of bank accounts by the GST authorities. The update no. 104/2020-12 and update no. 89H/2020-21 may be referred to by our netizens. In the present update, we seek to discuss yet another important judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/S VALERIUS INDUSTRIES V/S UOI concerning provisional attachment of the stock of goods and bank account of the petitioner by State Tax Officer under section 83 of the GST Act, 2017.

The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that just because a search has been undertaken resulting in seizure of goods by itself may not be sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that it is necessary to pass an order of provisional attachment to protect the revenue. The power u/s 83 should neither be used as a tool to harass the assessee nor should it be used in a manner which may have an irreversible detrimental effect on the business of the assessee. The court also held that the following factors must be taken into consideration, firstly whether it is a revenue neutral situation; secondly, the statement of output liability or input credit, having regard to the amount paid by reversing the input tax credit, if the interest of the revenue is sufficiently secured- then the authority may not be justified to invoke its power u/s 83. It would be a big mistake on the part of the revenue authorities to understand that the reasons to believe necessary for the purpose of carrying out inspection, search and seizure under Section 67 of the Act, 2017 would be sufficient for the purpose of formation of the opinion that it is necessary to provisionally attach the goods or other articles for protecting the interest of the government revenue.

The government has armed tax officers with sweeping powers to conduct searches,surveys and to attach the assets in case of recovery. Search proceedings are seen as blunt instruments of law enforcement. The intention of the government is that they want to expand the tax base, but it must be ensured that the tax administration is handling powers in a judicious way. The hon’ble High Court also held that under CGST Act, 2017, the order of provisional attachment can be passed only by the Commissioner and so in the present case, the provisional attachment order passed by State Tax Office was without jurisdiction. It was held that the power of forming reasonable belief in order to provisionally attach the property of the taxpayer is subjective one and has been delegated to the Commissioner which cannot be further delegated by him to the subordinate officers.

In this context, reference may be made to the decision given by the Hon’ble Gujarat high courtin the case of M/s Kushal Ltd.wherein it has been held that to exercise the power of provisional attachment of the property of a taxable person, proceedings should be pending under the requisite provisionswhereas in the instantaneous case pursuant to search under section 67(2) of the CGST Act, no inquiry or other proceedings under GST law was initiated.Thus,when the basic requirement for exercise of powers under section 83 was not satisfied, the provisional attachment of the bank account of the petitioners is not in consonance with the provisions and thus cannot be sustained and the High Court quashed the order of provisional attachment of the bank account of the petitioners.However, in the present decision, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that mere initiation of proceedings or pendency of proceedings under section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 per se would not lead to provisional attachment of the property of the taxpayer. Hence, this decision is one step forward to the decision given in case of M/s Kushal Ltd.

The High Courts act as a watchdog for applying the relevant provisions of the laws,specially the provisions which have adverse effect on the assessee such as provisional attachment of the property of the taxpayer. Although there are sufficient judicial guidelines against arbitrary exercise of such powers,taxpayers expect that the tax administration exercises due diligence to ensure that these powers are not abused.

This is solely for educational purpose.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com , at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21and u may also follow us on Linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16

 

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