-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
S.No | Section | Case Subject | Case | Held |
1 | Section | Opportunity | Tvl. Sree Amman | Petitioner challenged the impugned orders, apart from questioning them on merits, because of the objections filed by the petitioner were not taken |
2 | Section | No Interest | Nithya Packaging (P.) | Petitioner faced difficulty in transitioning ITC on capital goods and communicated with Department and officials named on Web Portal. However, |
3 | Section | Appeal could | KPMG India (P.) Ltd. | Petitioner contended that they had filed appeal along with digitally uploaded order on the common portal and hence, appeal could not be dismissed |
4 | Section 67 | No roving or | Bhagat Ram Om | Petitioner contended that the search authorisation was illegal as the same was issued without proper officer having any reason to believe that |
5 | Section | Opinion for | Muhammad Salmanul | Deputy Director, DGGI, Kochi Zonal Unit has requested the Range Officer, Ottapalam to cancel GST registration of the petitioner and petitioner |