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 time lost due to technical glitch to be excluded for calculating period of limitation

GST Update on time lost due to technical glitch to be excluded for calculating period of limitation
The GST law was introduced with an intention to reduce the complexities of the taxpayers and streamline the tax compliances. Consequently, to develop the easy tax reform, the compliances are now digitised which includes electronic filing of appeal. However, this has also increased the miseries of taxpayers due to frictions/glitches in complying with the requirement of GST Laws. Recently, on similar parameters one case was reported before Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S BRIJ BIHARI SINGH V/S COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.
The petitioner challenged the order related to cancellation of GST registration pertaining to the period 2019-20. However, the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the grounds of being time barred. The registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide notice dated 28.02.2019 and the reply of which was submitted by the petitioner as on 12.03.2019. However, due to non appearance of petitioner, ex-parte order was passed dated 09.08.2019. The petitioner filed grievance that he was not able to file any appeal against the order due to malfunctioning/errors in functioning of the GSTN portal. The petitioner furnished evidence in form of screenshots in support of his contentions well. The error was resolved as on 17.09.2021 for which a ticket was also issued and e-mail was also received by the petitioner as on 20.09.2021. Therefore, the appeal was preferred on 20.09.2021. Furthermore, because of the technical glitch, the order dated 09.08.2019 was displayed again on the portal having a different reference number.
The Court observed the facts of the case. It was stated that the GSTN authorities themselves acknowledged the difficulty faced by the assessee ininstituting the appeal against the order dated 28.02.2019 by displaying the order yet again with different reference number. Further, there was evidence of resolving the difficulty on 17.09.2021 i.e. after the expiry of statutory period of limitation and extended period of limitation as per Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017. The Court stated that since the petitioner was disabled from filing of appeal electronically for reasons attributable solely to GSTN for no fault on the part of the petitioner, it is to be assumed that the order was made available to the assessee as on 17.09.2021 and not on earlier. This is because the GSTN authority resolved the glitch as on 17.09.2021 due to which assessee was not able to prefer an appeal against order dated 17.09.2019 before the said date. It was stated that the statutory right of appeal is not illusory remedy. It is an effective remedy within the statue to address the genuine grievances. Therefore, the appeal forum must be freely available to the assessee without any obstruction to access it. Recently, due to technical glitches, the period of limitation of filing of appeal against order dated 17.09.2019 expired which ideally should run from the 17.09.2021 instead. This is because of the fact that no appeal could be filed by the petitioner owing to the technical issues. For the period from 28.02.2019 to 17.09.2021, the period of limitation to file appeal must be suspended. Therefore, the appeal is admitted being within time. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the case on merits within a period of 3 months from the date of copy of the order.
The above decision is a favourable decision for the business houses wherein lenient approach is taken as regards filing of appeal beyond the prescribed statutory period due to technical glitches on the GST portal, thereby giving shelter to the aggrieved taxpayer. It is well settled that default on account of technical lapses should not snatch the rights of appeal available to the assessee. It has been held in plethora of cases as well wherein it is held that substantial benefits should not be denied due to technical lapses. To illustrate, in the case of JOSE JOSEPH V/S ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND EXCISE, Kerala High Court delivered that rejection of appeal as time barred by Appellate Authority is not justified when the department defaulted in complying with the statutory provisions. It is high time that revenue authorities should implement these decisions rather than turning blind eye and depriving the assessees oftheir substantive rights resulting into sheer wastage of time and increasing the disputes.
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