A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice K R Shriram & Justice A S Doctor directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to issue guidelines in regard to pre-deposit through Form Goods & Services Tax (GST) DRC-03 for Service Tax/Excise matters for the lack of provision in law in Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd vs The Union of India and Ors [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 791].
In a significant ruling in to provide relief to the taxpayers, a division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that a GST order passed by tax authorities, which granted only seven days to file a reply to a show-cause notice is “patently illegal” and the High Court also asked the tax authorities to donate Rs10,000 to the PM CARES Fund.
In Asia (Chennai) Engineering Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 773], the Madras High Court has held that the filing of a reply to the show-cause notice in form GST-DRC-06 is not mandatory under Section 73(9), 74(9) and 76(3) of GST Act and the reply so filed through post shall also be treated as valid.
In A.H. Marble Crafts vs The Commissioner Tax [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 755], the Rajasthan High Court has held that the GST department cannot deny the benefit of linking of GSTIN on death of proprietor merely on the technical ground that the application for cancellation of GST registration was made using a wrong form.
The Delhi High Court in a significant case, allowed to grant the refund of IGST claimed by the petitioner on exported goods after deducting differential duty drawback in KISHAN LAL KURIA MAL INTERNATIONAL vs UNION OF INDIA [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 735].
In CURIL TRADEX PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 733], the High Court of Delhi held that Physical verification for GST registration carried out in the absence of the assessee’s authorised representative is not valid and quashed the cancellation order of the Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax.
In a significant ruling in GHODAWAT PACKERS LLP vs UNION OF INDIA [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 725], the Karnataka high court ruled that the Union government is entitled to levy Central GST (CGST) as well as excise duty on tobacco and tobacco-derived products.
In Oasis Realty vs Union of India [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 715], A division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the amount remaining in the Electronic Credit Ledger can be utilised to pay pre-deposit as per section 107(6) of the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017.
A division bench of the Delhi High Court has held that GST is not leviable on the portion of rent received by a Proprietor of a registered proprietorship firm when such renting is sone in his /her own personal capacity for use as his/her own residence as well as not for use in the course or furtherance of business of his/her proprietorship firm in SEEMA GUPTA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 714].
A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while overruling the orders passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) imposing GST in respect of ‘mango pulp’ @ 18%, has held that the same is incorrect since the item Mango pulp attracts 12% GST. [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 700].
The Madras High Court has held that an application filed before the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act does not survive after the enactment of Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2018 in M/s. Renaatus Procon Private Ltd vs Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 693].
While considering a petition challenging an endorsement by the GST department rejecting the already sanctioned GST refund not released due to technical glitches on the GST portal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the department to re-consider the claim and pay interest if the assessee is eligible in RK Infracorp Pvt Ltd Vs [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 683].
The Madras high court has, while considering a series of writ petitions with regard to the common question of release of goods under section 129 of the GST Act, held that a transporter can seek release of conveyance alone, and not goods under the GST Act. The court said that the entitlement to seek release under the section has been carefully and consciously sculpted to only the owner of the goods or to his agent, and not to a transporter inTCI Freight vs The Assistant Commissioner [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 680].
The Calcutta High Court held that Teak Sawn timber is “Natural Produce” and quashed the detention order due to a discrepancy in mentioning “Nature of Goods” in the E-Way Bill in Md. Yusuf vs. State Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1109].
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that the GST registration cannot be granted or renewed considering the fact that the said premise is under dispute between the co-owners in Parveez Ahmad Baba vs Union Territory of J&K [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 681]
In M/s RAJEEV TRADERS vs UNION OF INDIA [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 676] relating to confiscation under the Central GST Act, the Karnataka High Court has held that the power of confiscation under the Act can be invoked in extraordinary circumstances.
Relying on the recent GST circular dated 6th July 2022, where the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has clarified the refund under inverted duty structure where supplier is supplying goods under concessional notification, the Telangana High Court has directed the GST department to consider a refund claim by the assessee in Micro Systems and Services Sole vs Union of India [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 664].
The Madras High Court, while quashing a detention order by the State Tax Officer (Intelligence) has held that the power to issue such order is vested upon the jurisdictional tax officer under the GST regime in Macmet Engineering Limited vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 658].
The Telangana High Court has held that the investigation initiated post-filing of the application would not debar the application seeking Advance Ruling in M/s. Srico Projects Pvt. Ltd vs Telangana State Authority For Advance Ruling [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 651]
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that the delay of a few hours of expiry of tenure of E- way bill was not to evade tax in DAYA SHANKER SINGH vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 650]
The Division Bench of Madras High Court held that cut or sized shade trees is agricultural produce, not taxable under Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act (TNGST), 1959 in M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd vs Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 647]
In Drs Wood Products vs State Of U.P. [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 645], the Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the GST department finding that the registration of the assessee was arbitrarily cancelled. Noting that this kind of actions not only affects the assessee, but the same is also causing adverse effects on the revenue as it is not in consonance with the ease of doing business.
The Kerala High Court has held that the amendment to the Kerala Value Added Act in the year 2018 after the introduction of the GST Act is invalid due to legislative incompetence in BAIJU.A.A vs STATE TAX OFFICER [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 639].
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the benefit of amnesty scheme under the Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 cannot be denied merely on ground that the enquiry notice under section 125 of GST Act is issued to the assessee in Sonjoli Construction Co. vs Union Of India [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 636].
The division bench of the Delhi High Court has admitted the petition by the Sales Tax Bar Association against GST system glitches and asks for a response from the government, Infosys, and Tech Mahindra in SALES TAX BAR ASSOCIATION vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 623].
The Calcutta High Court, remanding a matter back to the files of the GST authorities, held that the one-line order dismissing an appeal on ground of delay in filing without discussing the merits of the case shall be deemed as invalid for the Goods and Services Act, 2017. Usha Gupta, Proprietor of UR Enterprises vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 617].
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has held that the assessee has the right to appeal even after the voluntary payment of the penalty made under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act in HINDUSTAN STEEL AND CEMENT vs ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 609]
The Gujarat High Court has Gujarat HC directed the Government to refund the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on ocean freight pursuant to unconstitutional Notification in M/S LOUIS DREYFUS COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 607]
In RAILSYS ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 602], the Delhi High Court has held that an unsigned order cancelling GST registration is invalid and therefore, quashed the same as the same is against the provisions of the Central GST act, 1961.
In an assessee-friendly ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the GST department to lift the attachment as the same cannot be valid after the period prescribed under Section 83 of the Central GST Act, 2017 in SH. NITIN SINGHANIA vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 602].
In M/S Shyam Hardware Store vs The State of Jharkhand [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 575], a division bench of the Jharkhand High Court, while quashing an order, held that the investigation report by the officials cannot be treated as a proper show cause notice for the purpose of the Central GST Act, 2017.
In a major relief to Vodafone Idea, a division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justices K. R. Shriram & Milind N. Jadhav has held that roaming services and international long-distance services provided by Vodafone Idea to the Foreign Telecom Operators is an Export Of Service for the purpose of the Integrated GST Act, 2017 in Vodafone Idea Limited vs The Union of India [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 556].
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Services Tax which had categorically rejected the appeal for restoration of the GST registration the assessee for delay of one day in Sunil Kumar Vij vs Union of India and others [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1059].
The Delhi High Court Division Bench in SUNNY JAIN vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1025], directed the department (respondents) to unblock the Input Tax Credit (ITC) of petitioner available in his Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL). Additionally, solely because the supplier has not been paid, it is not possible to restrict the ITC.
A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has recently allowed a writ petition for Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund to be issued, observing that “the Assessee of those consultants and others could communicate with the GSTN on portal if a feature like “MAY I HELP YOU” is created by the authority on due deliberation or through the “Grievance Redressal Mechanism” in AARTOS INTERNATIONAL LLP (FORMERLY AZUVI INTERNATIONAL LLP) vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CUSTOMS), [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1010].
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court, while allowing a petition by M/s Manappuram Finance Ltd, has held that the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) clarifying that GST not applicable to the notice pay received from an employee, has retrospective effect and has directed the GST department to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner (employee) in M/S MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1004].
In MAURIA UDYOG LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 995], a Delhi High Court Division Bench warned the department of imposing exemplary costs and interest for non-disbursal of Goods and Services (GST) Transactional Credit amidst many complaints regarding the issues with the Income Tax and GST Portals.
In SHREE GOVIND ALLOYS PVT. LTD. vs STATE OF GUJARAT [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 997], the Gujarat High Court has recently set aside the detention order of trucks of Shree Ram Road Carriers, as the demand and detention was based merely on assumption of tax evasion from expiry of E-Way Bill.
The Rajasthan High Court, on Friday, asked the Joint Commissioner, Circle Nimbahera of GST to show-cause why cost should not be imposed upon him for nonperformance of duties enjoined upon him by law after Court found that the officer acted in a reckless illegal manner leading to unwarranted litigation in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs The Union of India & Ors. [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 982].
In a significant ruling which may lead to a debate, the Chhattisgarh High Court has stated that the revisal of TRAN-1/2 forms are allowed under the Central GST Act and the recent circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) denying the further revisal is legally not permitted. The decision was pronounced in M/s Jagdalpur Motors vs Union of India [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 953].
A division bench of the Jharkhand High Court has held that the electronic cash ledger (ECL) is merely an “e-wallet” and therefore, the liability to pay interest arises on delayed filing of GSTR-3B return and debit of tax due from the Electronic Cash Ledger are independent in RSB Transmissions (India) Limited vs Union of India [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 907].
The Andhra Pradesh High Court while recently considering a writ petition in M/s.Esveeaar Distilleries Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 889], held that the services by way of job work in relation to manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption should pay 18% GST under the Central GST Act, 2017.
In Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and others [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 874], the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Genpact India cannot be treated as an “intermediary” and therefore allowed a refund of Rs.26,34,61,625/- in favour of the Company.
The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court recently held that a Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration issued to the assessee and then cancelled upon request cannot be revoked merely based on the property disputes with the brother of the applicant in Parveez Ahmad Baba Vs Union Territory of JK and others [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 862].
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the amendment to section 50 of the Central GST Act, 2017 regarding the imposition of the interest on late payment of tax has a retrospective effect in Abis Export India Private Limited vs State of Chhattisgarh [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 832].
In a significant ruling in M/S CHROMOTOLAB AND BIOTECH SOLUTIONS vs UNION OF INDIA [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 817], a division bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that the date of filing of the application as reflected on GST portal would be liable to be treated as date of filing claim for refund to the satisfaction of the requirement of Section 54 of the Central GST Act and Rule 89 of the Central GST Rules.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that a certificate under Rule 145(2) of the Central GST Rules, 2017 is sufficient to condone delay in filing of appeal due to non-establishment of the GST Tribunal in V.C. Infra Vs The Commissioner of State Tax [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 814].
In a significant decision for taxpayers under the GST regime in Chep India Private Limited vs Union of India & Ors. [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 512], a division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising K. R. Shriram & Milind N. Jadhav has directed the Department to allow the transitional credit through GSTR-3B.
The Gujarat High Court has held that the Electronic Credit Ledger can be blocked for 1 year and it would automatically get unblocked beyond 1 year.
The Karnataka High Court held that the Toyota is an output service provider and can utilise cenvat credit on output services in THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GST WEST COMMISSIONERATE, TTMC BUILDING, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE vs M/s TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 177].
The Gujarat High Court has held that taxpayers entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) and a technical glitch in GST Portal should not deprive him of such a claim.
The Rajasthan High Court has referred the issue of interest on compensation for motor accident claims exigible to tax and whether the insurance companies are required to deduct TDS to Larger Bench.
The Madras High court has directed the assessee to pay GST for a period subsequent to the cancellation of registration by declaring the correct value of supplies.
The Karnataka High Court has held that owners of buildings can claim GST Exemption if residential premises leased out are used as hostels to house students, and working professionals.
The Rajasthan High court has directed the Goods and Service Tax Authority (GST) department not to Force Taxpayers to deposit GST or take Coercive Measures without adhering to the procedure provided under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
The Rajasthan High court has upheld the provision related to claiming of GST refund of unutilised ITC in M/s Triveni Electrodes, F-78, Brij Industrial Area, Bharatpur VS Union Of India [2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 163].
The Uttarakhand High Court has stayed the condition in the GST Circular relating to filing of refunds in chronological order.
The Jharkhand High Court has stayed levy of GST under Reverse Charge Mechanism on the amount of Royalty and District Mineral Fund Contribution paid in respect of minor mineral lease.
A two-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court consisting Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore has held that the input or output ratios to be considered for determining the quantum of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC).
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has refused to quash the summons against a person accused of creating numerous fake firms and availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraudulently holding that there should be reasonable apprehension of coercion by the GST Department for ‘summons proceedings’ to be conducted through CCTV Cameras.
The division bench of Justice R D Dhanuka and Justice S M Modak of the Bombay High Court has expressed its concern over the allegations made by several assessees in various petitions about the repeated summons issued by the GST authorities for the purpose of harassment, coercion and recovery of substantial amounts during the stage of investigation itself without issuance of a show cause notice.
The Gujarat High Court bench consisting Justices J B Pardiwala and Nisha M Thakore while quashing an order of provisional attachment, held that the GST officials cannot provisionally attach personal properties of a partner of a partnership firm without final determination about the liability of the firm, which is accused of wrongly availing input tax credit (ITC).
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Justice Nisha Thakore and Justice J. B. Pardiwala has asked the Government to take care of the technical glitches in the GSTN at the earliest and slammed the Government that the High Court is flooded with the litigations due to such glitches.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has disallowed refund of accumulated credit of compensation cess in the absence of ITC of cess in Credit Ledger for relevant period.
The Madras High Court has recently ordered the GST department to release the detained vehicle since the “proper officer” has failed to issue a notice during the proceedings.
A division bench of the Delhi High Court has held that the GST department cannot issue a fresh notice during the pendency of the proceedings under section 73 and 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice S.V. Gangapurwala & Justice M.G.Sewlikar has allowed a refund claim quashing the orders of the GST authorities by holding that GST is not applicable to services rendered outside India and the authorities could not establish that the incident of tax has been passed on to the recipient ASCL located in London.
The Calcutta High Court has directed the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to allow amendment in GSTR-1 in order to rectify a mistake in mentioning the GSTIN.
While upholding an order granting GST refund, the Calcutta High Court has held that the goods attracting nil rate of cess shall be treated as ‘exempted’ for the purpose of adjusted total turnover under Rule 89(4) of the Central GST Rules.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has upheld the legality of the show cause notice based on mismatch in returns filed by the supplier and the dealer by holding that the same amount to a mere technical breach.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has allowed a refund claim of the exporter and held that the strict application of GST rules to deny legitimate export incentives to the exporters would defeat the legislative intent of export incentives.
The Orissa High Court, in a recent ruling, held that claim of ITC by an input service distributor (ISD) only in the case of an inward supply, and an ITC transfer from one state to another is not an inward supply.
A division bench of the Karnataka High Court has upheld the AAR ruling finding 18% GST is payable on ‘pattadar pass book cum title deed’.
The Calcutta High Court has held that the GST department shall not seize the vehicle in the absence of a second e-way bill since the first e-way bill was valid during the period of interception.
The Calcutta High Court has held that the input tax credit cannot be denied in case of genuine transactions with suppliers whose GST registration is cancelled.
The Delhi High Court has set aside the order of cancellation of GST registration due to No notice served prior to inspection of premises.
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (HC) ruled that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be Denied due to Cancellation of GST Registration with retrospective effect.
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Mr. Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Ms. Justice Nisha M. Thakore has read down paragraph 2 of Notification No. 11/2017 mandating 1/3rd deduction of Land as ultra vires.
The Karnataka High Court has declared that there is no conflict between the power to levy GST under GST Act and power of Municipal Corporation to levy advertisement fee or advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.
The Kerala High Court has held that the bonafide errors in the e-way bill formats would attract minor penalties under the GST law.
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that the provisional attachment under the Central GST Act, 2017 shall not be enforced in such a way as to hamper the normal business of the assessee.
The Gauhati High Court has recently allowed a taxpayer to pay the GST dues in 48 equal instalments considering their financial conditions.
The Allahabad High Court has held that the GST registration cannot be cancelled merely for the reason that a firm is described as “bogus” under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
A two-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court, while criticising the methods adopted by tax officials to meet revenue targets given by the higher-ups, asked the state tax officials not to take coercive steps to recover tax amounts, particularly when appeals and applications for stay filed by taxpayers are pending in the tribunal.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that, Issuing Notice for Hearing is a Statutory Requirement under Section 75(4) Of GST Act before Imposition of Tax or Penalty.
A division bench of the High Court while considering a petition filed due to non-availability of Form GST ITC-02A on the GST Portal, directed the department to allow the assessee-petitioner Input Tax Credit of Rs.2,58,03,590/- through the next GSTR-3B return.
The Calcutta High Court has directed the GST department to cancel the blockage of Credit Ledger as the order for the same expired after one year.
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court has directed the GST department to withdraw the negative block of the electronic credit ledger at the earliest.
The Madras High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department can continue service of the physical copy of the notice through registered post, speed post, or courier with acknowledgment to the assessee at their last known place of business or residence and upload the notice on the web portal.
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the refund application under the Goods and Service Tax (GST) cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay.
A division bench of the Karnataka High Court has ordered the GST department to grant a refund of Rs. 27 crores illegally collected from Swiggy.
The Calcutta High Court, while considering a writ petition by an individual, held that the Integrated GST is applicable on the interest component of the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) of a loan advanced by a bank on a credit card as the same does not come within the purview of exempted services.
The Madras High Court, while quashing an assessment order, held that DRC-1 Notice is mandatory before concluding Assessment under the GST regime.
The Kerala High Court has held that the Taxpayer cannot invoke writ jurisdiction and approach the High Court to avoid the mandatory pre-deposit since the matter is already pending before the Statutory appellate authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
A two-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that the transaction cannot be suspected merely on ground that the GST registration of the other-end dealer was cancelled with retrospective effect.
The Delhi High Court has recently directed the GST department to release a refund of Rs. 1.8 crores along with an interest of 6% for the reason that the department has not complied with the CBIC circular prohibiting payment during search proceedings and prescribing guidelines for receipt of voluntary payment by the assessee.
In the absence of any module provided by the GST department, regarding the online filing of GST appeal against the audit order, the Rajasthan High Court has allowed the assessee to file the appeal manually.
The Gujarat High Court has held that the cash credit account of assessee cannot be provisionally attached in exercise of powers under GST.
The Bench of the Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan at Jharkhand High Court has recently directed the petitioner, M/s Shivam HiTech Steels Pvt. Ltd to seek available alternative remedies.
A division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ravi Malimath, & Justice Vishal Mishra has dismissed a petition challenging section 8 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 and the rules and notification connected thereto, in view of the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court and affirming the validity of the Act in a similar case.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
