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
Due date for furnishing the return in FORM GSTR-3B for Maharashtra and Jharkhand extended for October 2024: Notification
GST ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The CBIC has issued notification to extend the due date for furnishing the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the month of October, 2024 till 21st November, 2024 for the registered persons whose principal place of business is in the state of Maharashtra and Jharkhand.
Key Details:
Statute Number: NOTIFICATION NO. 26/2024–CENTRAL TAX
Date of Statute: 18-11-2024
Case Chronicles
HC set aside order as petitioner was ready to pay 25% of disputed tax and requested one final opportunity to present objections
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner was ready and willing to pay 25 per cent of disputed tax and requested for one final opportunity to present objections to proposal, assessment order passed on basis of show cause notice was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Manickam Company Firm vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 174 (Mad.)
Order to be set aside for reversing ITC as it was passed without providing proper hearing to the assessee: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where bank account was attached for alleged ITC reversal, same was to be lifted on deposit of 25 per cent of disputed tax after adjusting amount already paid, and impugned order was to be treated as show cause notice and objections were to be filed by assessee; if deposit was not made or objections were not filed within stipulated period, impugned order was to be revived.
Key Details:
Case Name: Jegatheeswaran vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 172 (Mad.)
Order can't be passed without considering reply of assessee by merely stating that authority was not satisfied with reply: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where while submitting return, assessee inadvertently entered input tax credit in column 4(A)(3) instead of Section 4(A)(5) and submitted that column 4(A)(3) was related to reverse charges and during relevant period assessee had no liability on reverse charge, since assessment order was passed without considering reply of assessee and merely stating that authority was not satisfied with assessees reply, such order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Annai Abirami Electricals vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 178 (Mad.)
Matter remanded due to lack of opportunity to defend case on mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee raised a clear case that there were sufficient materials/documents to substantiate defence of assessee to effect that there was no mismatch between outward supplies turnover declared in GSTR-1 and outward supplies arrived in GSTR-3B, without going into merits of matter, order imposing demand was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded back to GST authority for fresh consideration.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Sewa TOJI Electronics vs. Deputy Sales Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 179 (Mad.)
HC granted interim relief since audit was concluded beyond the period prescribed under GST law
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned show cause notices were issued by respondent- authority under section 65(7) read with section 74 of CGST Act, assessee submitted that audit was concluded beyond period prescribed under section 65(4) of CGST Act, thus impugned notices were without jurisdiction, proceedings pursuant to impugned notices were to continue but no final order was not to be passed without permission of Court.
Key Details:
Case Name: Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 56 (Guj.)
GST registration cannot be cancelled due to the non-production of a consent letter/NOC from landlord for additional place of business: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessees GST registration was cancelled as consent letter/NOC from landlord for additional place of business had not been produced, for adding another place of business there is no requirement under Rule 19 of CGST Rules, impugned show cause notice cum order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Crystal Beverages vs. Superintendent, Range 2, Rohtak
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 54 (P&H.)
Non-payment of tax dues for three months is not prescribed ground for cancellation of GST registration
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Non-payment of tax dues for three months is not prescribed ground for cancellation of GST registration under Section 29 of CGST Act or Rule 21 of CGST Rules, making such cancellation illegal.
Key Details:
Case Name: Subhana Fashion vs. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 82 (Del.)
Blocking of ECL quashed due to lack of pre-decisional hearing for taxpayer before order issuance
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where no pre-decisional hearing was provided/granted by respondent-authorities before blocking Electronic Credit Ledger and there was no independent or cogent reason to believe except reports of Enforcement authority, impugned blocking order was impermissible in law as same was based on borrowed satisfaction.
Key Details:
Case Name: Theos Metals Trada Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 83 (Kar.)
HC directed dept. to process refund application within one month after affording assessee an opportunity to be heard
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner had erroneously paid GST on account of inbound courier services and filed three applications seeking refund of GST paid, but said applications had not been processed, and respondents submitted that said applications would be processed within one month, respondents were bound down to their statement to process refund applications.
Key Details:
Case Name: Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner GST
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 170 (Del.)
5% GST on Hydrated lime (slaked lime) being classifiable under Heading No. 2522000: AAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Hydrated lime (slaked lime) intended to be manufactured by assessee is classifiable under heading no 2522000 and is taxable at rate of 5 percent.
Key Details:
Case Name: In Re: Balveer Singh
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 184 (A.A.R. - GST - Raj.)
No question of exemption since there is no transfer of business in transaction between applicant-assessee and concessionaire: AAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where transaction between applicant-assessee and concessionaire is not transfer of business, but, merely operating lease, however, concessionaire is supplying service of developing airport of applicant-assessee and applicant-assessee is supplying service of manpower, leasing etc., to concessionaire, therefore, both constitutes supply under Section 7.
Key Details:
Case Name: In Re: Airports Authority of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 183 (A.A.R. - GST - Ker.)
Delay in filing appeal condoned as no opportunity was given to assessee before passing assessment order: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where appeal filed beyond condonable limitation period was dismissed but assessee was not given opportunity before passing assessment order on GSTR returns mismatch, delay was condoned and matter remanded for hearing on merits.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ramu Medical Foundation vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) Appeal
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 108 (Mad.)
Matter remanded as notice was issued but not received by assessee who has substantiate defence in his favour: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee contends no mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 and has materials to prove, impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration, subject to payment of 20% of disputed tax amount.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ram Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 107 (Mad.)
Recovery proceedings to be dropped if assessee filed appeal with mandatory pre-deposit of 10% tax: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Recovery proceedings impermissible after filing appeal and payment of 10% pre-deposit under Section 107 of CGST Act during pendency of appeal.
Key Details:
Case Name: S.K.S. Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 81 (A.P.)
HC directed appellate authority to hear appeal on merits as appellant had deposited fees of Rs.10,000 instead of Rs. 20,000
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where appeal was rejected by appellate authority for advance ruling as incomplete, not maintainable, as appellant-assessee had deposited Rs. 10,000 instead of Rs. 20,000 required as fee, appeal not to be rejected on account of fee as not maintainable, appellate authority was to be directed to hear appeal on merits.
Key Details:
Case Name: Imaging Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 57 (P&H.)
Order demanding tax and penalty set aside as no personal hearing was granted: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where adjudication order demanding tax and imposing penalty was challenged for lack of personal hearing, proceedings after reply to show cause notice were set aside, directing opportunity of hearing be provided within three months.
Key Details:
Case Name: Rean Watertech Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 76 (M.P.)
Cancellation of GST registration set aside due to the lack of specific details in the SCN allegations: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: GST registration cancellation based on cryptic show cause notice lacking specific allegations set aside for violating principles of natural justice; registration ordered to be restored.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ravi vs. Avato Ward 84, State Goods and Services Tax
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 75 (Del.)
Writ dismissed as no supporting documents were provided to establish the alleged illness of the consultant: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Petitioners could not feign ignorance of pre-show cause notice and show cause notice by contending that its consultant was unwell or remained unreachable; further, efficacious alternative remedy was available to petitioners in form of an appeal.
Key Details:
Case Name: Flemingo Dutyfree Shop Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 171 (Cal.)
Refund application was quashed as the claim for excess service tax paid was filed beyond the prescribed period: HC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Refund of service tax paid in excess if any, has to be made within a period of one year from relevant date as specified under Section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1994.
Key Details:
Case Name: Heidelberg India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Goods, and Service Tax and Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 165 (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.
The Renowned ??????-?????????? is now '????????????’!
Introducing ????????????????????????.??????.
It combines our Editorial legacy of ???? ?????????? and our Research legacy of ???? ?????????? with the latest technology.
Offering reliance and expertise as consistently as ever.
Experience a century’s expertise of tax laws with a 7-day FREE TRIAL: https://centax.one/I5Fj
????????????????
? ???????????????????? ????????????
? ????-?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ???? ??.??. ????????’?? ?????? ??????????
? ????????-???????? ?????????????????? ???? ???????? ????????, ????????????????, ??????.
? ??.???? ???????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ?????? 1940?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????