Centaxonline’s Tax Gazette
Dear Reader,
Welcome to Centaxonline's Tax Gazette – Where Complexity Meets Clarity.
Today, we draw the definitive line between being informed and uninformed, empowering you with the latest and most essential tax insights.
Statutory Scope
Launch of Revamped Preferential Certificate of Origin (eCoO) 2.0 System: Trade Notice
FOREIGN TRADE POLICY ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The DGFT has issued trade notice to inform that enhanced version of the Preferential Certificate of Origin (eCoO) system - eCoO 2.0 - is scheduled for launch. This upgraded system offers several new and user-friendly features aimed at streamlining the certification process for exporters.
Key Details:
Statute Number: TRADE NOTICE NO. 23/2024-25
Date of Statute: 06-12-2024
Case Chronicles
Order suspending GST registration to be set aside as it was passed without considering the assessee's reply: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Order suspending GST registration of assessee without considering reply filed by assessee in response to show cause notice, impugned order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. A.V. Traders vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 371 (Mad.)
Order cancelling the GST registration retrospectively was set aside as no reasons were provided for cancellation: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where application of assessee seeking cancellation of registration was rejected and pursuant to issuance of show cause notice, to which assessee had furnished reply, impugned order was passed cancelling registration retrospectively without assigning any reason, same was to become operative from date of SCN.
Key Details:
Case Name: Akash Garments India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 402 (Del.)
Writ to be dismissed as assessee didn’t avail remedy of revocation under Amnesty Scheme by paying all dues
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner-assessee neither availed appellate remedy against order of cancellation of registration within limitation period ending on 30-3-2023 nor did avail remedy under Amnesty Scheme by paying all dues, writ petition was to be dismissed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Rani Enterprises vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 3 (Pat.)
Writ petition dismissed as premature since the assessee failed to respond to the show cause notice: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee pursuant to issuance of show cause notice alleging that assessee was indulged in generating fake ITC by doing cash transactions and relying upon fake invoices, assessee preferred instant writ petition without even replying to said notice, same was premature and was to be dismissed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Baba Minerals vs. Union Of India
Citation: (2024) 25 Centax 14 (Raj.)
Contractor was entitled to reimbursement of GST difference due to rate change; HC directed dept. to release differential amount
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where at time of grant of contract, rate of GST was 12 per cent, same stood enhanced to 18 per cent and for difference in GST, department was directed to release differential amount to contractor.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ganga Sagar Singh vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 384 (All.)
HC directed dept. to furnish copy of audit documents received from Enforcement Authority for purpose of Audit
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where pursuant to notice for conducting audit, petitioner had submitted reply along with documents and alleged that same were not considered, however revenue stated that such documents were considered to complete audit, revenue was to be directed to furnish copy of documents and no action was to be taken till two weeks after documents were furnished.
Key Details:
Case Name: Rechargekit Fintech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, CT and GST
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 387 (Ori.)
Assessee was directed to deposit entire amount and detained goods to be released immediately thereafter
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee owner of goods was prepared to deposit amount contemplated under section 129(1)(a) to which department had no objection, goods and vehicles were to be released.
Key Details:
Case Name: Maan Sahab Trading Udhyog vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 385 (All.)
Matters remanded as no proper opportunity for hearing was granted before passing the adverse order: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Order passed without granting proper personal hearing violates principles of natural justice requiring fresh opportunity for reply and hearing.
Key Details:
Case Name: Swastik Cement Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 390 (All.)
Writ petition filed against order of authority cannot be entertained as an effective alternate remedy of appeal is available: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee had claimed Input Tax Credit in respect of supplies from dealers whose registration certificate had been cancelled, who had failed to file returns and who had not remitted taxes Writ petition filed against order of Competent Authority cannot be entertained when an effective alternate remedy is available by way of an appeal.
Key Details:
Case Name: Syed Mohamed Pattani vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 391 (Mad.)
SCN quashed for wrong availment of ITC as assessee could not file Form GST ITC-02 due to common portal's non-functionality: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner-assessee could not file Form GST ITC-02 on respondents-department’s common portal because common portal was not fully functional, further, various judgments held that technicalities created by respondent-department should not be put forth to defeat statutory rights and entitlement of assessees, therefore, impugned show cause notice dated 17.08.2023 was quashed and respondents-department were directed to consider manually filed forms by petitioner-assessee as expeditiously.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tikona Infinet Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 392 (Bom.)
Assessee was directed to file rectification application as time was available as per GST Act amendment: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where pursuant to filing belated return by assessee and passing of impugned order, an amendment was made into section 16 extending time for filing return, assessee was to be directed to file rectification application as time for same was still left.
Key Details:
Case Name: Amarnath Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 403 (Ori.)
Matter required consideration as activities by a charitable institution do not qualify as business activities: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned order in original was passed holding income of petitioner, a charitable institution, taxable under GST, since activities of charitable institutions would not fall under ambit of activities undertaken in course of business, matter required consideration, thus, impugned order was to be stayed till next date of listing.
Key Details:
Case Name: Aroh Foundation vs. Additional Commissioner
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 404 (Del.)
Order rejecting refund to be quashed as the petitioner was entitled to refund as per the amended formula: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where new formula introduced through Notification No. 14/2022 and clarified via Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST, limited its applicability to refund applications filed after 5 July 2022, since in judicial precedents it was held that notification No. 14/2022 introducing amended formula under Rule 89(5) was curative and retrospective and refunds must be recalculated using amended formula for all applications filed within statutory period, regardless of filing date.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ascent Meditech Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 405 (Guj.)
Relaxation for payment granted by Municipal Authority to non-defaulter exhibitor needs no interference; HC dismissed writ
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where municipal authorities granted permission to respondent No.6 to occupy a Municipal ground for holding exhibitions for certain amount with GST, writ petition was filed as amount was not recovered as per agreed terms by respondent No. 6, relaxation for payment of balance amount had been granted by municipal authorities in favour of respondent No. 6 considering he was not a defaulter, proceedings were to be dismissed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bandi Lakshmi Narasimhulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 406 (A.P.)
Royalty paid by a mineral concession holder to the government cannot be considered tax and therefore subject to GST: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Royalty paid by mineral concession holder to government cannot be considered as tax and, hence is subject to GST.
Key Details:
Case Name: Matri Stone Crusher vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 407 (H.P.)
Order for cancellation of registration set aside in absence of any evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where registration of assessee was cancelled retrospectively vide impugned order on grounds that registration was obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, in absence of any material relied upon by authority to even remotely indicate such allegation, impugned order could not be sustained.
Key Details:
Case Name: Nayara Industrial Mart Traders vs. Principal Commissioner
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 408 (Del.)
Order to be set aside as no opportunity for hearing was provided after supplying documents alleging fraud to assessee: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where in compliance to High Courts order, documents on basis of which tax fraud was alleged were supplied to assessee but neither opportunity of hearing nor opportunity to cross-examine persons making statement was provided, demand order was to be quashed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Savita vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 409 (All.)
Matter remanded as AO passed a non-speaking order denying ITC without assigning any reasons: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where in reply to notice alleging huge difference in sales turnover assessee submitted reply that major portion of work was done in VAT regime and some portion in GST regime, but Assessing Officer merely noted that reply was not convincing, and passed order which did not reflect reasoning matter was to be readjudicated.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. V M & Co. vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 410 (Mad.)
As we conclude this issue of Tax Gazette, we hope you've gained clarity and insights on the critical legal and tax matters that shape our world. Remember, with Centaxonline. You're not just informed. You're insightfully empowered.
????????????????????????.??????—Blending 50+ years of editorial excellence and 20+ years of research expertise with cutting-edge technology.
?????? ????????????????:
— ???????????????????? ???????????? with real-time updates
— ???????????????? ????-?????????? ???????????? ???????????? inspired by R.K. Jain’s GST ExCus
— ????????-???????? ??????????????????of Case Laws and Statutes
— ??,????,??????+ ???????? ???????? with expertly drafted headnotes and judicial analysis
— ???????????? ?????????????? Acts, Rules, Circulars, Notifications, GST & Customs Tariffs
— ????,??????+ ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????covering GST, Customs, Excise, and FTP
— ???????????? ???????? featuring historical and current GST/Customs Tariffs with HSN/SAC codes
— ???????????????? ????-?????????????? ???????????? ????????????????
? Autocomplete Predictions
? Two Search Modes
? Refined Filters
? Dynamic Search Options
— ????????-???????????????? ??????????
? Split-Screen Interface
? Hyperlinked Navigation
? Bookmarks & Notes
? Export Options
— ???????????????????? ??????????????????, including Finance Acts & Bills, GST Council Meetings, and Expert Commentaries
— ?????? ???????????????????????? ??????????, Includes GST, Customs, Excise, Service-Tax and FTP
???????????????? ?? ???????????? ???? ???????????????????? ???? ???????????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ??-?????? ???????? ??????????! https://centax.one/neefy