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
Dept. can’t raise demand of interest on delayed furnishing of return without initiating any adjudication proceedings: HC
The petitioner was engaged in business of manufacturing various types of power distribution transformers, conductors and cables. There was some delay in filing of return for period from June 2018 to March 2019 and the department issued notice for the payment of interest on account of delayed filing of the return. The petitioner received a notice and a demand of interest was made without any adjudication. It filed writ petition against the demand of interest and contended that the recovery proceeding under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 could not be initiated without a final adjudication.
The Honorable High Court noted that as per Section 73, the proper officer shall issue the notice at least three months prior to the time-limit specified for issuance of order. In the instant case, there was no adjudication before a demand for the payment of interest was raised because of the delayed filing of the returns. Therefore, it was held that without initiating any adjudication proceedings under section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act 2017, where liability had been disputed, the department could not raise a demand for payment of interest on delayed furnishing of return. The Court also noted that the time for filing of return was extended by the Government. Thus, the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.
Assessee could not be expected to monitor GST portal after cancellation of GST registration: HC
The petitioner was a registered person under GST and his registration was cancelled by the department. Thereafter, the department issued an assessment order which was preceded by the notices that were uploaded on the GST portal. It filed writ petition against the order and contended that notices and order were uploaded on the GST portal, but not served on the petitioner through any other mode.
The Honorable High Court noted that the petitioner was not monitoring the GST portal since the petitioner's registration was cancelled. However, the petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. ? ?
Therefore, the Court held that the impugned order was to be quashed and the petitioner was permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice. The Court also directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and fresh order was to be passed.
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?
Taxmann.com | Research | GST – Largest Database Redefined
About:
The GST repository features an AI-based search engine designed to recreate and simplify the way you conduct your research—a combination of features that are impeccably specified and tied by a common thread.
? 71,000+ Case Laws with Integration and Headnotes/Case-Digest
? Authentic, Amended & Updated 35+Acts/40+Rules with Annotations & Integration
? 345+ Forms Updated in real-time
? 26,000+ Circulars & Notifications
? 'Notifications in Force' tool for a list of currently effective Notifications
? 'Historical Tariff' tool for checking rates at different periods
? Expert Discourse Hub Featuring 10+ Commentaries and 3200+ Articles
? 22,000+ Answers to Your Practical GST Queries from V.S. Datey et al.
? Real-Time Intelligence Feed that Reports from 1,000+ Authentic Sources
Subscribe Now and Transform the Way You Work! https://taxmann.social/BuGXf