GST Daily
Dear Reader,
Today’s newsletter analytically summarizes the top GST stories reported at?taxmann.com .
Revenue issued show cause notice for cancellation of the registration for not filing the returns for a continuous period of six months without providing a proper reason for the same. Upon not submitting any response to the same, an ex-parte order under section 29 of the CGST Act for cancellation of the registration was issued. The petitioner did not respond to the same in the manner provided in section 30 by applying for revocation of cancellation of registration. Instead, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The said appeal was filed in time but was rejected by an ex-parte order providing that the appellate authority has no power to interfere with an order issued under Section 29 of the CGST Act and since the taxpayer did not file the application for revocation of cancellation in time as per section 30, the appeal is to be rejected. ? ? ?
In the given case, it is held that it is settled law that if the manner of the law of doing something has been provided in the law then it must be done in the given way or not at all. This has been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law. ? ? ?
The action taken by the officer by initiating the proceeding in Form GST REG-31 of the CGST Rules is without jurisdiction as the notice must have been issued in Form GST REG-17. Hence the show cause notice issued and the subsequent order passed stands quashed. ? ?
The taxpayer is engaged in FMCG had a manufacturing unit eligible for exemption. They made the expansion with the impression that the exemption would continue in GST. Also, the new units were established post-GST era whose permission was already taken in the pre-GST era.
The benefit of the Budgetary support scheme was rejected as the unit was established after the GST was implemented whereas the benefit of the scheme was available only where the unit was established pre-GST. The contention of the assessee that the approval was taken pre-GST era was not acceptable.
It was further held that the benefit of promissory estoppel would not be applicable in the case of withdrawal of exemption notification as the withdrawal of exemption in public interest is a matter of policy as in the exercise of the statutory power of the state under law. The court cannot bind the Government to its policies decision when the same is changed/revised/withdrawn in the nature of public interest. The court cannot interfere with fiscal policy where government acts in the public interest unless fraud or lack of bona fide intention is established. Hence the said doctrine cannot be invoked in the present case.
That’s it from us for today! Stay Tuned for more updates from?Taxmann.com.
Taxmann Academy presents the Batch III of Level 1 | Foundation of the Tax and Accounts Professional (TAP) Course!
Enroll in the Foundation Level of TAP course and get conceptual and practical training in book-keeping, Income-tax, GST, TDS, Payroll, MS Office, Labour Laws, and much more.
???????? ?????? ?????????????? ?????????????? ??????!
Or, Sign-up for a FREE Demo Class:?https://taxmann.social/WeLmX
Don’t feel Trapped; Enroll in TAP!?
Batch Begins January 2023