Part-154-One Pager Snapshot to Cases on Section 73, 75, 129 of CGST Act, 2017

-Order passed in violation of Principle of Natural Justice set aside as information regarding Parameter 70 and 73 not given to petitioner in the garb of information available on Portal

-When tax invoice and E-way bill are produced the assessee, the goods shall be treated as belonging to the assessee, who comes before the authorities as the owner of the goods and produces the above documents

-DRC-01 cannot be a substitute of SCN and proceedings were in violation of principle of Natural Justice when SCN did not strike out relevant particulars and did not enumerate contravention which petitioners were to reply

-Merely because SCN issued did not refer to Section 73(11) but referred only to possibility of penalty U/Sec 73(9), appellant cannot be said to be prejudiced when facts leading to invocation of provision were admitted by appellant

Part-153-One Pager Snapshot to Cases on Section 54, 75, 107, 129 of CGST Act, 2017

-Application for refund cannot be rejected as being deficient once it is accompanied with all the documents required under Rule 89(2) although proper officer can call for additional documents by issue of Notice in RFD-08

-Petitioner being a transporter can file an appeal against an order passed against him U/Sec 129(1)(a) even though payment for release of goods was made by owner but same was deducted from account of Petitioner

-Merely because petitioner did not appear on the hearing date, it cannot be presumed that he was not interested for hearing and even though he did not appear but the impugned order needs to consider reply to SCN as submitted

-Five heads including date by which reply is to be furnished and date, time and venue of hearing mentioned in this prescribed statutory form itself indicate that there are two stages, i.e. filing of reply and grant of personal hearing

Part-148-One Pager Snapshot to Cases on Section 29, 67, 74, 75 of CGST Act, 2017

-Penalty U/Sec 74 held to be justified since petitioner failed to discharge its onus to prove and establish beyond doubt the actual transaction, actual physical movement of goods as well as the genuineness of the transactions

-Revocation was cancelled registration not allowed as the order was a reasoned order and order passed based upon physical enquiry and discrepancies observed not properly explained by the petitioner

-Assessee is not required to request for “opportunity of personal hearing” and assessing authority bound to give the hearing even if petitioner may have signified ‘No’ in the column meant to mark assessee’s choice

-Officers had no power to seize cash under section 67 of the CGST Act

-On the direction of the court, Silver was released to the petitioner at the respondent’s office which was situated at fourth/fifth floor but was again seized at Ground Floor of building to over-reach the orders passed by the Court.

Part-144-One Pager Snapshot to Cases on Section 16, 29, 75, 107 of CGST Act, 2017

-Since reminder notice only contained the date by which reply is to be submitted and NA was mentioned at the date of hearing thus provisions of Section 75(4) have not been followed.

-Refund cannot be withheld only because as on today, department has not taken the decision whether to review the order-in-appeal or to file an appeal against the said order

-Cancellation order passed without providing any reason is not sustainable in the eyes of the law.

-Benefit of Circular for mismatch shall be accorded even though the benefit was not availed ta adjudication stage and matter might have travelled to appellate stage.

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

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

Part-97-One Pager Snapshot to the Latest Cases on Section 29, 50, 67, 75, 107, 122 and 140

-Opportunity of being heard be provided before an adverse order
-No Interest and Penalty for Transitional credit which could not have been availed due to technical glitches on portal maintained by the Government
-Appeal could not be dismissed as certified copy of order not produced
-No roving or fishing inquiries be conducted under the garb of authorisation U/Sec 67
-Opinion for cancellation of registration cannot be formed by DGGI



Case Subject





of being
heard be
before an

Tvl. Sree Amman
Metal Works v. State
Tax Officer
[2023] 154 496

Petitioner challenged the impugned orders, apart from questioning them on merits, because of the objections filed by the petitioner were not taken
note of by the respondent and non-speaking orders was passed.
The Court observed that reading of the impugned orders did not imply the reasoning of the authority concerned. That apart, though adverse orders
were being passed against the petitioner, no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to him, which was contemplated under section 75(4) of
the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. Therefore, on this limited ground, without addressing the merits of the case, the Court allowed Writ
Petitions and set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the respondent



No Interest
and Penalty
credit which
could not
have been
availed due
to technical
glitches on
by the

Nithya Packaging (P.)
Ltd. v. Assistant
Commissioner of GST
and Central Excise
[2023] 154 494

Petitioner faced difficulty in transitioning ITC on capital goods and communicated with Department and officials named on Web Portal. However,
he was unable to transfer the transitional credit. Thereafter, petitioner decided to avail such Credit. The credit was confirmed by Sanction Order
(Tran-1 Credit) dated 20-2-2023. Meanwhile, proceedings were initiated to recover the amounts from the petitioner, which culminated in the
impugned order. By the impugned order dated 28-3-2023, officer had imposed penalty and interest on the petitioner under section 50 and Section
73(9) read with Section 122(2)(a). The impugned order was passed as petitioner filed a revised return in terms of the decision of Bombay High Court
in Chep India Private Limited v. Union of India and others dated 27-6-2022 and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and
another v. FILCO Trade Centre Private Limited dated 22-7-2022, claiming ITC, which was earlier sanctioned by the Sanction Order (Tran-1 Credit)
dated 20-2-2023. The only point that arose for consideration was whether petitioner could be mulcted with interest and penalty even though the
credit which was taken was sanctioned and merely because the petitioner had also filed returns to transition the same credit.
The Court observed that petitioner was entitled to Rs. 11,06,396/- on the eve of implementation of GST with effect from 1-7-2017 and by Sanction
Order (Tran-1 Credit) dated 20-2-2023, proper officer had confirmed that petitioner was entitled to the aforesaid transitional credit. Therefore, merely
because petitioner had filed subsequent return and had given up the same would not mean that petitioner could be subjected to pay interest and
penalty. The difficulty arose only on account of technical glitches in the web portal maintained by the Central Government at the time of
implementation of GST. The petitioner cannot be penalized as the credit itself was allowed after the implementation of GST by Sanction Order (Tran1 Credit) dated 20-2-2023. Therefore, order seeking to impose interest and penalty on the petitioner was held to be unsustainable and thus quasshed



Appeal could
not be
dismissed as
copy of order
not produced

KPMG India (P.) Ltd.
v. Joint Commissioner
of State Tax (Appeals)
[2023] 154 492
(Punjab & Haryana)

Petitioner contended that they had filed appeal along with digitally uploaded order on the common portal and hence, appeal could not be dismissed
on the ground that certified copy was not attached with the appeal.
The Court observed that since uploaded copy was already part of the appeal, it would amount to substantial compliance of Rule 108 and Joint
Commissioner would not dismiss the appeal by impugned order on the ground that appellant had not submitted certified copy of order impugned
therein. Since fact was further clarified by notification dated 25-1-2023 whereby it has been clarified if an order against which appeal has been filed
is uploaded on common portal, then final acknowledgement shall be considered as date of filing of the appeal. The writ petition was thus allowed


Section 67

No roving or
inquiries be
under the
garb of
U/Sec 67

Bhagat Ram Om
Prakash Agro (P.) Ltd.
v. Commissioner of
Central Tax, GST
[2023] 154 491

Petitioner contended that the search authorisation was illegal as the same was issued without proper officer having any reason to believe that
conditions as specified under Section 67(1) of CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner stated that search was conducted in view of directions issued by the
Special Judge (P.C. Act) to Income Tax Department, GST Department, and Enforcement Directorate to check source of Rs. 50,00,000/- received
by petitioners. Petitioner no.2 purchased a property from one Mr. Rajesh Kumar Anand for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Anand had
deposited the said consideration in a fixed deposit receipt which was offered as a collateral for securing the bail of Sh. Kapil Wadhawan and others.
The Court issued notice to the revenue but at the same time observed that they had serious reservations whether any such roving and fishing
inquiry under the CGST Act, 2017 could have been directed to be conducted by the Special Judge. Further, the proper officer can authorise the
search only if the conditions specified in Section 67 of the Act are fulfilled.



Opinion for
cannot be
formed by

Muhammad Salmanul
Faris k v.
CGST & Central
Excise [2023] 154 414

Deputy Director, DGGI, Kochi Zonal Unit has requested the Range Officer, Ottapalam to cancel GST registration of the petitioner and petitioner
was given a personal hearing by the proper officer on 27-3-2023. However, petitioner did not appear on the said date and new date was fixed on
19-4-2023. The petitioner did not appear for the said hearing on 19-4-2023 and therefore, impugned order for cancellation of the GST registration
of petitioner was passed. The petitioner contended that when DGGI Cochin Unit has already taken a decision and directed for cancellation of the
GST registration of the petitioner, the competent authority could not have taken a decision contrary to the said direction issued by the higher authority.
The Court observed that considering the aforesaid submissions, there was no denial of fact that the DGGI, Kochi Zonal Unit has already taken the
decision for cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner and the proper officer was only required to form the formalities and could not have taken
an independent decision. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and remanded back for decision on merits. However, the said order was not
revived further for a period of one month