| 1 |
Orissa High Court held that the First Appellate Authority should have intimated the defect of non-deposit (10% mandatory predeposit) before rejecting the appeal. This judgment can help us in cases where due to non-deposit appeals are rejected straight forward without communication of defect. GST - Appeal, Pre-deposit requirement, Principles of natural justice – Rejection of appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, without intimating the petitioner about the defect prior to the hearing HELD - When the Appellate Authority proceeded to hear the matter on merits, it should have brought the defect regarding the non-compliance of the pre-deposit requirement to the petitioner's notice prior to the hearing. By not doing so and then rejecting the appeal solely on this ground, the Appellate Authority violated the principles of natural justice – if the petitioner been informed about the defect, it would have deposited the required amount to comply with the statutory requirement - the petitioner is allowed five days to make the necessary deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act and the Appellate Authority is directed to then consider the appeal on merits after intimating the petitioner about the date of hearing - The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of M/s HARSHEEL AUTO PLANET, SUNDERGARH Vs COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CGST, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS 2025-VIL-455-ORI |
|
| 2 |
Liability under CGST Act, 2017 ???? In the case of Amit Manilal Haria v. Union of India [2025] GCtR 992 (Bombay), it was argued that the liability is foisted on Z by virtue of the provisions of Section 122 (1A) of CGST Act, 2017 which was brought into force from 1st January 2021. However, the show cause notice proposed to impose penalty on Z for the period starting from July 2017 to March 2022. According to Z, assuming everything to be correct, no penalty could have been demanded for any period prior to 1st January 2021, as the said provision is prospective in nature. It was held that it is not in dispute that Section 122 (1A) was brought on the statute book only with effect from 1st January 2021 and yet penalty is sought to be imposed on Z for a period much prior thereto ; prima facie, that one of the issues raised in the present Petition is squarely covered by Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari v. Union of India [2024] GCtR 917 (Bombay), so interim relief is to be granted. |
|
| 3 |
Income Tax : Duty of Assessing Officers ???? In the case of Viacom 18 Media Pvt Ltd v. DCIT [2025] GCtR 1096 (Bombay), appeal filed by assessee was allowed, although final relief was not granted. In this case, for the assessment year under consideration, AY 2013- 14, the Appellant-Assessee entered into an agreement on 19 August 2011 with Intelsat Corporation. The agreement provides for the provision of 24 hour fixed-term preemptible satellite signal reception and re-transmission service by Intelsat to the Appellant-Assessee. This service was to be supplied from one transponder located at 68.5° East longitude. It was held that Court under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot take upon itself the factual determination of the nature of service. Any exercise by High Court on the factual determination, in the absence of the said exercise being carried out by three authorities below, would set a wrong precedent and would be contrary to the provisions of Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellant-Assessee having made an application to invite a decision on the basis that the payments under the agreement does not constitute ‘royalty’ as per the Act or the Treaty cannot now be heard to say that since the revenue’s decision was based on Domestic Tax Law and same being contrary to various decisions, consequently it should be held that the payment does not constitute ‘royalty’ under the Treaty. |
|
| 4 |
GST / Indirect Tax : Procedure for Input Tax Credit ???? In Solvi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner [2025] GCtR 1094 (Allahabad), it was held that he perusal of the contents of Section 16 of the GST Act, 2017 shows that the input tax credit can be claimed only on the fulfilment of conditions mentioned therein. It also clarifies that no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both. The contents of Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 provides for determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud or any wilful misstatement or suppression of fact. Rule 36 of the GST Rules, 2017 provides for document and condition required for claiming input tax credit. Perusal of the contents of Rule 36 of the GST Rules, 2017 provides that the required documents for claiming input tax credit should be made available and the same may be reflected in GSTR-3B. From Sections 16 & 74 of the GST Act, 2017 as well as Rule 36 of the GST Rules, 2017, it is clear that the provisions as provided, certain benefit of input tax credit to the registered person should be provided on the fulfilment of conditions as well as documents required to be provided therein. Furthermore, Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 provides the power to the State-authorities to proceed against the registered dealer if I.T.C. has wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud or wilful misstatement of fact or by means of fraud, and upon the adjudication, can recover the same. It is a matter of common knowledge that after filing of GSTR-01, an auto populated window would be open for filling the GSTR-3B for payment of tax and GSTR-2A can be viewed by the purchaser of the goods in question. Under the GST regime, all details are available in the GST Portal and therefore, authorities ought to have been verified the same as to whether the filing of GSTR-1A and GSTR-3B, how much tax has been deposited by the seller. |
|
| 5 |
Indirect Tax and GST : Allegations of Fraudulent Availment of ITC In case of Banson Enterprises v Assistant Commissioner CGST [2025] GCtR 1091 (Delhi), a search was conducted. It was revealed that the Petitioner entity had issued goods-less invoices to various entities in order to enable fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit. It was pointed out that the "nature of the allegation against the Petitioner in the present case, as is clear from the SCN as also the impugned order is that the Petitioner, in collusion with other entities has taken substantial benefit of ITC without sale of any goods or services. This strikes at the root of the Input Tax Credit facility which is recognised in the GST regime." It was held that an appeal before the appellate authority is a full-fledged remedy provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Where cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC are concerned, considering the burden on the exchequer and the nature of impact on the GST regime, writ jurisdiction ought not to be usually exercised in such cases. |
|
| 6 |
WP(C) NO 8904 of 2024 TRILOK INDUSTRIES ( remand back to first appeallate authority rejected the appeal for non deposit of 10 percent) |
|
| 7 |
Judgment passed in March 2025, some extremely novel dimensions of law has been put forth and relief was granted. Application has been allowed. |
|
| 8 |
Show cause notice was issued by Tax Department u/s 74 , which failed to lay in place any clear allegations of collusion, misstatement or wilful suppression of facts. SCN quashed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. |
|
| 9 |
GST Commissioner Refuses to provide Personal Hearing Despite Written Request: Allahabad HC Imposes 20K Cost |
|
| 10 |
Madras HC holds, service of notices and orders through GST portal is a valid mode of service and rejects the argument that the GST portal is not a “designated computer resource of the assessee” and hence as per Sec. 13 (2) (a) (ii) of the Information Technology Act, receipt occurs only when the communication is retrieved. Also distinguishes other decisions of the co-ordinate bench holding otherwise. |
|
| 11 |
No GST On Services Provided By Clubs/Associations To Their Members, S. 7(1)(aa) of CGST Act Struck Down: Kerala High Court |
|
| 12 |
The Jharkhand High Court has set aside orders denying input tax credit (ITC) on delayed returns, upholding the retrospective application of clause (5) to Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. Case No.: W.P.(T) No. 3123 of 2024. Date: 09.04.2025 |
|
