Part-143-One Pager Snapshot to Cases on Section 29, 75, 140 of CGST Act, 2017 and HSN 9992 for educational services

-HSN 9992- Inspection and affiliation fees charged by university from educational institutions is liable to GST

-Section 140- Assessee was entitled for transfer of TDS from Pre-GST to Post-GST by way of transitional Credit

-Section 75-Opportunity of being heard not mandatory to be given wherein no reply was given and nor any request was made nor any explanation was furnished to the contents of notice

-Section 29-Proper Officer shall specify reasons wherein it has been alleged that registration was obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts and registration is to be cancelled retrospectively

View Fullscreen

Part-142-One Pager Snapshot to Cases on Section 122, 168A of CGST Act, 2017 and arriving at place of cause of Action for filing of Writ petition

-Section 122(1)(iii) – There being no allegation of tax evasion, the maximum penalty that could have been imposed was Rs. 10,000/-which could even be lower than the said amount if the Taxing Authority as well as the Assessing Authority had considered the mandate of Section 126(2) of the Act

-Section 168A-Vires of Notification dated 31st March 2023 extending the time limit specified under section 73 of the Act by virtue of the powers under section 168A of the Act challenged

-Writ Jurisdiction-Cause of action to arise based on the location of office of the petitioner and not based on location of office of revenue authority exercising the power

View Fullscreen

Part-141-One Pager Snapshot to Cases on Section 16, 54, 107, 129 of CGST Act, 2017

-Once finding of fact, which was recorded against the assessee has not been assailed, the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case beyond the pleadings.

-Delay condoned beyond limitation period as Petitioner had studied only 8th standard and therefore, he was not capable to peruse the notices and orders on GST portal.

-Appellate Authority cannot reject the refund application by going beyond the reason stated in the Order by Adjudicating Authority and Statement of export invoices was already submitted by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and Adjudicating Officer

-ITC cannot be denied merely on the difference of GSTR 2A and 3B

View Fullscreen

Part-140-One Pager Snapshot to Cases on Section 29,74 and 129 of CGST Act, 2017

-Upon a purposive reading, it would be suffice to state that the legislation makes intent to evade tax a sine qua non for initiation of the proceedings under sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act.

-Authorities cannot assert that recipient has failed to bring facts about payment of tax by supplier as the same can be verified from the portal as to how much tax has been deposited by the selling dealer

-No Opportunity for cross examination required as enquiry conducted and statement taken of landlord was not a trial, but a summary proceeding to find out whether registered dealer is conducting any business from declared place of business

View Fullscreen

Part-139-One Pager Snapshot to Cases on Section 73,75,79, 161 of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 86A of CGST Rules 2017

-High Court allowed the petitioner to file rectification application for claim Credit in correct head as deportment counsel stated that petitioner had right to correct the mistake by filing rectification application which has not been done.

-ITC Ledger unblocked post issuance of SCN over and above 10% of the amount assessed to fulfil the condition of Section 107

-Matter remanded as notice and reminder did not indicate date, time and venue of personal hearing and word “NA” was transcribed

-Challenge to DRC-01A dismissed as it was only a proposal and was not final determination

-Recovery for difference in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B has to be done as per the procedure provided under Rule 88C subsequent to its insertion after 26-12-2022

View Fullscreen

Part-138-One Pager Snapshot to Cases on Section 6, 29, 73, 75, of CGST Act, 2017

-Mandatory to provide opportunity of hearing even if assessee signified “no” on the portal
-Invalid Cancellation of registration based on vague SCN
-Proceedings initiated by two different authorities can be consolidated with one of the authorities and taxpayer cannot insist that proceedings shall continue with which authority or should be continued with the authority who had first taken up the issue
-SCN dropped as issue was already covered by an earlier SCN issued by different authority cannot be treated to have been decided on merit

View Fullscreen