| | | | |
| Section
29 and
Section
30 | Petitioner directed to
file application for
revocation of
Cancellation of
Registration as per
notification no.
3/2023-CTdt 31-3-23 | Anandkumar Ramdeo
Singh v.
Commissioner
(Appeals-I) GST and
Central Tax [2023] 151
taxmann.com 13
(Karnataka) | The High Court observed that the notification dated 31.03.2023 has been issued providing for revocation of cancellation of the
registration. Since the cancellation was under the provisions of Section 29(2) of the CGST Act and such cancellation was before
31.12.2022, and an application for revocation was not filed, the High Court stated that application be submitted that in terms of this
notification. |
| Section
74 and
Section
75 | A vague notice is
violation of provision
in Section 75 since
the Statute itself
prescribes for
affording reasonable
opportunity and any
deficiency in that
regard vitiates the
result. | [2023] 151
taxmann.com 12
(Madhya Pradesh)
Balaji Electricals
v. Appellate Authority
& Joint Commissioner
State Tax. | The High Court observed that even though the petitioner had not specifically raised the said ground before the appellate authority
but the fact remained that mandatory provisions of Section 74 of GST Act make it incumbent upon the Revenue to ensure the show
cause notice to be speaking enough to enable the assessee to respond to the same. However, SCN revealed that it neither contained
the material and information nor the statement containing details of ITC transaction under question. It was further observed that
Section 75 of GST Act is a complete Code which prescribes for various stages for determination of wrongful utilization of ITC while
following the concept of reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since the Statute itself prescribes for affording
reasonable opportunity, it is incumbent upon the Revenue to afford the same and any deficiency in that regard vitiates the result.
The High Court held that it had no manner of doubt that the very initiation of the proceedings by way of show cause notice was
vitiated for the same being vague.
Case Referred- Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises v. The State of Jharkhand & ors) including WP(T) No.745/2021 14thth, September
2022, |
| | to bear GST Burden
in case of Pre and
Post GST Contracts
wherein impact of
GST was not
considered while
preparing BOQ | [2023] 151
taxmann.com 12
(Madhya Pradesh)
Balaji Electricals
v. Appellate Authority
& Joint Commissioner
State Tax. | The matter in the instant petition was to give by way of direction upon the respondent authority concerned to bear the additional tax
liability for execution of subsisting Government contracts either awarded in the pre-GST regime or in the post GST regime without
updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for inviting the bids
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representations in the aforesaid
regard before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks from date. On
receipt of such representations the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department was directed to take a final decision within four
months from the date of receipt of such representation after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned. |
| | Status of Recovery of
demand on account
of non-constitution of
Tribunal. | Flipkart India (P.) Ltd.
v. Additional
Commissioner of
State Tax (Appeal)
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 10
(Patna) | The High Court held that subject to verification of the fact of deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in
dispute, or deposit of the same, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section
107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the
B.G.S.T. Act, for he cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The
recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed.
Case Referred- AJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Others in C.W.J.C. No. 15465 of 2022 |
| Section
69 and
Section
132 | Rejection of
Anticipatory Bail | [2023] 151
taxmann.com 9 (SC)
Sheetal Mittal v. State
of Rajasthan | The Supreme Court held that looking to the role attributed to the petitioner(s) and the observations made by the High Court that the
GST number, name of the firm were fabricated and other details were found to be non-existent, there was no case for anticipatory
bail. The Special Leave Petitions were thus dismissed |
