GST Daily
Dear Reader,
Today’s newsletter analytically summarizes the top GST stories reported at taxmann.com .
HC directed dept. to refund the amount since tax & penalty during detention could not be collected twice
The petitioner, being a transporter, was engaged to transport dried areca nuts from Karnataka to New Delhi in a truck. The petitioner's vehicle was intercepted and the driver produced the necessary papers but failed to produce the E-way bill. The amount of tax, penalty and fine, as quantified by GST Authorities, had been paid twice once by the petitioner and then by a supplier. It filed a writ petition demanding a refund of the amount of tax and penalty which had been paid twice.
The Honorable High Court noted that the petitioner paid the quantified amount of tax penalty and fine as his vehicle had been detained. There was merit in the contention that the petitioner would be entitled to a refund since the petitioner was not a supplier of goods but was engaged in transporting the same. Since the amount of tax, penalty and fine quantified in GST, could not be collected twice over, revenue was required to be the same.
However, there was no option available in the portal for the petitioner to apply for a refund online. Therefore, the Court allowed the petitioner to make an application for a refund manually to Revenue and revenue was directed to process the same.
GST registration can’t be cancelled with retrospective effect without providing reasons for same: HC
In the present case, the proper officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to cancel its GST registration on grounds of failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. Additionally, the petitioner's GST registration was suspended with effect from the date of show cause notice. Thereafter, an order was issued cancelling the petitioner's registration with retrospective effect. It filed an instant petition challenging the said order.
The Honorable High Court noted that the cancellation with retrospective effect cannot be arbitrary and the impugned order did not provide any reason for cancelling GST registration let alone doing so with retrospective effect. Moreover, the GST registration was cancelled from the date covering even that period during which the petitioner had filed returns. Therefore, the impugned order to extend cancellation of registration with retrospective effect, was to be set aside and GST registration shall stand cancelled from the date of issuance of notice.
That’s it from us for today! Stay Tuned for more updates from Taxmann.com .
Taxmann.com | Research – The Legal Repository on Tax | Corporate Law & Accounting that India Trusts
?????????? ??????????????.?????? | ????????????????:
An AI-based search engine designed to recreate and simplify the way you conduct your legal research. A combination of features that are impeccably specified are tied by a common thread:
? Making your legal research easy and efficient.
? With a Search Engine containing the most extensive database on tax and corporate laws in India, it fetches the relevant document in a single click. ? The platform sets itself apart by providing – Integrated and Annotated texts of statutory materials with legislative history.
? 'Three-Line-Digest', 'Head Note'/'Digest' in every case law. Along with a list of backward & forward case linking of judicial analysis & its 'Check Viability tool', which helps you determine which case law is reliable.
Subscribe Now and Transform the Way You Work! https://taxmann.social/zy3Fb