GST Daily
Dear Reader,
Today’s newsletter analytically summarizes the top GST stories reported at?taxmann.com.
The petitioner was engaged in the business of trading industrial chemicals, soda ash, silica bicarbonates etc. A search and seizure operation was carried out by a team of CGST officials. The petitioner’s firm had provided access to all records during the course of the search. However, the input tax credit lying in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner was reversed under coercion, and Form DRC-03 was filed illegally/involuntarily during the search and seizure operation. It filed a writ petition before the High Court and prayed for a refund of ITC illegally reversed.
The Honorable High Court noted that at the time of issuance of a notice, the department had made the petitioner reverse ITC and file DRC-03 at midnight. In the instant case, the department had violated interim directions made in the case of Bhumi Associate vs UOI [2021] 124 taxmann.com 429, which had not been challenged, and instruction was issued by CBIC pursuant to the Bhumi Associate case, which was binding in nature.
Therefore, the Court held that the said reversal of ITC could not be said as voluntary, and the department was directed to refund ITC reversed with interest at the rate of 6%.
The petitioner was engaged in the manufacture and sale of medicines. It exported certain goods through a valid exporter and, therefore, applied for a refund along with documents in support of the refund claim. The refund was sanctioned, but the CGST department, being dissatisfied with the said refund order, preferred an appeal against the said order.
The Appellate Authority rejected the refund on the grounds that the exporter, to whom goods were supplied, had not mentioned the name and GSTIN of the petitioner in the shipping bill. The petitioner filed a writ petition against the rejection of the refund.
The Honorable High Court noted that although the exporter had not initially mentioned the name and GSTIN of the petitioner in the shipping bill, later on, it indicated the same at the request of the petitioner. Moreover, the original Authority had granted a refund on verification of goods sold by the petitioner to the exporter, which were further sold to a third party. Therefore, the Court held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside, and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal afresh after granting the opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner.
That’s it from us for today! Stay Tuned for more updates from?Taxmann.com.
Register Now for Taxmann's Classes | [Virtual] Workshop on Audits, Assessments & Recovery under GST
1 Session | 1 Speaker | 180 Minutes
?? 17th March 2023 (Friday) | ?? 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM (IST)
Fees: ? 795/- + GST @18% Extra
Register Now! (Limited Slots Available):?https://taxmann.social/arl9r
Faculty:
?? Shankey Agrawal ?– Partner |? BMR Legal Advocates
Mr Agrawal specialises in indirect-tax disputes and has been part of many high-stake matters, with over 14 years of robust experience.
Key Learnings:
?? Procedure for Assessment under GST
?? Search & Seizure Proceedings
?? Stages of Departmental Audits & Investigations
?? Departmental SCNs and their Response
?? Recovery Proceedings
?? Pre-deposits during Investigations
?? Appellate Remedies & Procedures
Benefits to Participants:
?? Get Replies to your Queries
?? Complimentary Access to the GST Module of Taxmann.com | Research & Practice for one month
?? Complimentary Virtual Access to Taxmann’s GST Issues – Decoding GST Issues & Litigation Trends for one month [Virtual/e-Book]
?? Certificate of Participation
?? Relevant For:
? Chartered Accountants
? Company Secretaries
? Cost & Management Accountants
? Advocates
? GST Practitioners
? Finance Professionals
? Tax Professionals
? Consultants