GST Daily
Dear Reader,
Today’s newsletter analytically summarizes the top GST stories reported at taxmann.com.
HC instructs assessee to reply to notices and directed authorities to hold order till the decision on 'royalty' from Constitution Bench
The petitioner challenged an intimation from the Department communicating GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid to the Government for the period 2018-19 to 2022-23. The petitioner relied on Notification No. 13/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) and interim orders of the Supreme Court, arguing that GST on mining lease is excluded as per the notification and that a stay was granted by the Supreme Court pending the decision of a Nine Judge Constitution Bench. The Division Bench's judgment in Tvl. A. Venkatachalam v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) was also cited, which directed submission of objections to show-cause notices and keeping orders of adjudication in abeyance until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decides on the nature of royalty.
The High Court disposed of the petition on similar terms as the aforementioned Division Bench judgment. It permitted the petitioner to submit a reply to the intimation, following the directions of the Division Bench. The Court directed that there should be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench makes a decision. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to raise any contentions in appropriate proceedings following the outcome of the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decision.
HC directed to take liberal approach to allow assesse for late filing of revocation application for cancelled GST registration
Mohammad Nassruddin v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and CX - [2024] 160 taxmann.com 444 (Jharkhand)
The petitioner, a registered proprietary firm, had its registration cancelled due to failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. Despite the expiration of the time for filing an application for revocation of cancellation of registration, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief. The petitioner relied on a notification extending the time for filing such applications until June 30, 2023, due to which they could not themselves avail of the benefit within the prescribed period.
The High Court acknowledged the consequences of cancellation of registration for the petitioner's business and discussed on provisions under the GST law aimed at providing opportunities for defaulting firms to continue their operations. Emphasizing the need for a liberal approach, the Court held that despite the lapse of the prescribed period under section 30 of the CGST Act, the petitioner should be allowed to file an application for revocation of cancellation of registration. Consequently, the High Court granted permission to the petitioner to file an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, with the period of limitation to be counted from the same date.
That’s it from us for today! Stay Tuned for more updates from Taxmann.com.
There's GST – 'Acts' | 'Rules' | 'Forms' | 'Notifications' | 'Case Laws' for Everyone!
Buy Now with Free Expedited Shipping & Get a Limited Period Discount! https://taxmann.social/nu6Na