GST Daily
Dear Reader,
Welcome to Taxmann.com | Newsletter – Reporting the Facts with Taxmann's Analysis. Today's Edition Brings to You Comprehensive Coverage of GST Case Laws | Statutory Updates | Analysis
For GST registration, consent of one co-owner is sufficient when property is jointly owned
The petitioner and the husband of respondent were co-owners of a property. Respondent applied for GST registration, which was granted. The petitioner filed an application for cancellation of the registration, asserting that his consent, as a co-owner, had not been obtained. The application was rejected by the adjudicating authority, following which the petitioner appealed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, while considering the appeal, referred to Form REG-01, which specifies the required proof of principal place of business for GST registration. The authority held that as the electricity bill was in the name of the registered owner, there was sufficient compliance with Clause (a) of Form REG-01, which governs ownership-based registration proof. Aggrieved by this ruling, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders.
The Hon’ble High Court held that under GST laws, an ownership document suffices for registration purposes without requiring the consent of all co-owners. The court analysed Form REG-01 and clarified that Clause (a) applies where the applicant is the owner, requiring only ownership proof. Clause (c), which mandates a consent letter, is relevant only when the applicant is neither the owner nor the tenant. Since the electricity bill was in the name of the registered owner, it constituted sufficient compliance with Clause (a). Consequently, the authorities had rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for cancellation of GST registration. The writ petition was dismissed accordingly.
Penalty for mismatch between E-way bill & delivery challan upheld as it indicates intention to conceal actual recipient of goods
The assessee was engaged in the transportation of a JCB machine from one state to another when the vehicle carrying the machine was intercepted by the Bureau of Investigation. During the inspection, the driver failed to produce the original or duplicate copy of the tax invoice, delivery challan, or e-way bill as required under GST law. Upon verification using the E-Way Officer App, it was found that an e-way bill had been generated for the transportation. However, during physical verification, a delivery challan was submitted, which contained material discrepancies and lacked the prescribed particulars under Rule 55 of the CGST Rules, including the required signature of the consignor or its authorized representative. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty equivalent to 200% of the tax payable under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The penalty order was upheld by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the decision, the assessee challenged the penalty before the Calcutta High Court, contending that the penalty was imposed solely due to the non-production of the delivery challan and did not indicate any intent to evade tax.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the mismatch between the e-way bill and the delivery challan was not an inadvertent discrepancy but a deliberate attempt to conceal the identity of the actual recipient of the inward supply. As per the e-way bill, the consignor was an unregistered person, whereas the delivery challan was accompanied by a release letter issued by a registered entity. The Court observed that this discrepancy provided an opportunity to evade tax by misrepresenting the actual recipient of the rental/lease service of the JCB machine. Furthermore, the availability of e-way bill footprints to tax authorities indicated that the declaration of an unregistered person as the consignor was intentional, aimed at avoiding GST liability. Accordingly, the Court upheld the penalty under Section 129(3) of the GST Act and dismissed the appeal.
That's it from us for today!
We're keen on enhancing Your Taxmann.com | Newsletter Experience and would greatly value your input. Your feedback is pivotal in guiding our improvements. Could you spare a few moments to share your thoughts in the comments on how we might better serve your needs?
??????????????.?????? | ????????????????—Where Technology Powers Your Legal Research Needs
Access the ?????????????? ???????????????? ???? ???????? ????????, ????????????-?????????????? ????????????????, and a ?????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? to find exactly what you need, when you need it.
Experience State-of-the-Art Tax & Corporate Law Research! https://taxmann.social/dpSGE