| | | | |
| Section
29,
Section
30 and
Section
107 | Appeal filed before
Appellate Authority
rejected on account of
limitation period; High
Courts remands back for
fresh consideration as
registration was suomotu cancelled | Narayanpet
Municipality
v. Superintendent
of Central Tax
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 303
(TELANGANA) | In the instant case, appellate authority rejected the appeal as it was filed beyond the period of extended limitation
The High Court observed that though the lower appellate authority may be right in holding that while it may allow filing of an appeal
beyond the limitation of three months for a further period of one month, but the delay beyond the extended period of one month cannot
be condoned, however, such a stand may adversely affect the petitioner. This is more so because registration was suo motu cancelled
on the ground of non-filing of returns and as GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, petitioner
would be left without any remedy. The High Court thus remanded the entire matter back to reconsider the case of the petitioner and
thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law |
| Section 9,
Section
24 and
Section
24 | General Power Attorney
Holder is liable to get
registered and pay tax on
rent as they are involved
in the act of leasing of
property and receives
and retains, income from
property, including rent. | Nagabhushana
Narayana [2023]
150 taxmann.com
304 (AAR -
KARNATAKA) | The applicant being a non-resident Indian, residing at California, USA, owned a commercial property in Bengaluru and rented the said
premises from which is in receipt of rental income. The owner i.e. applicant has given General Power of Attorney (“GPA” to his mother
Smt. Prabhavathi quoting that he is working outside India and thus unable to take care of said commercial property owned by him).
The AAR observed reading through the provisions of GPA, that the act of leasing of immoveable property was taken up by the GPA
holder and as per GPA, the incomes from the property, including the rent were received and retained by the GPA holder. Thus, the
GPA holder is the supplier of service of leasing of the building for commercial purposes and thus liable to be registered and required
to pay tax on supply of Renting of Immovable Property service of the commercial building. |
| | Once the appellate
authority considers the
entire documents on
record in case of an exparte assessment, then
there is no need to
interfere in the order
passed by the appellate
authority | Jalsa Resorts v.
State of U.P. [2023]
150 taxmann.com
306 (Allahabad) | The petitioner's premises were inspected by the Special Investigation Branch on 06.12.2017. On the basis of the report submitted by
the Special Investigation Branch, the notice under Section 74 of UPGST Act, 2017 was issued to petitioner demanding Rs.48,96,000/-
amount of tax penalty and interest. Since petitioner neither replied to the SCN and nor did it produce relevant documents for assessing
the correct tax from July, 2017 to March, 2018, ex-parte order dated 11.11.2021 considering the turnover as one crore was assessed.
The Appellate Authority, from the entries, as found in the diary recovered by the Special Investigation Branch, noticed that the petitioner
had received much more advance i.e. Rs.17,95,000/- than it was shown in the returns i.e. Rs. 3,73,983.05/- however, Appellate
Authority based upon the records reduced amount from Rs 48,96,000 by Rs Rs 38,56,680/-.
The High Court on the appeal of the petitioner held that it does not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the assessment order is based on presumption. The appellate authority had examined each and every document
submitted by the petitioner as well as the documents recovered by the Special Investigation Branch |
| | Conveyance to be
release on deposit of Rs
100000 and a bond eqaul
to fine levied in lieu of
conveyance. | Tanmit Singh
V.
State of Gujarat
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 332
(Gujarat) | In the instant case, goods which were confiscated were auctioned and amount was recovered through auction. The petitioner
contended that since the goods been auctioned by authority, in such circumstances of the case, conveyance may be released and
the petitioner is ready and willing to give sufficient amount of bond for the remaining amount of fine in lieu of conveyance. The
respondents counsel submitted that the goods which have been auctioned had not fetched the full amount of tax, fine and penalty and
also submitted that the major chunk of tax, fine and penalty was yet to be recovered.
The High Court held that once the bond is furnished towards fine of Rs.25,86,486/- in lieu of confiscation of conveyance and the
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is deposited with the respondent authority, the respondent concern may release the conveyance immediately |
