Snapshot-15-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

-Cancellation of Registration without following principle of Natural Justice
-Writ Petition not maintainable as matter pending before the Proper Officer
-Posting of Order with incorrect and incomplete address is not a valid delivery

15.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section 

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section
29

Cancellation
of
Registration
without
following
principle of
Natural
Justice

Precitech
Engineers v. State
of U.P.
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 214
(Allahabad)

Writ Petition was allowed considering the fact that the order impugned cancelling the registration was prima facie
without application of mind and the case was thus squarely covered by the judgment in the case of M/s Chandra
Sain (Supra) and the issue of non-fixation of time and date is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the
case of M/s Jaiprakash Thekedar (Supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed on both the counts.

Mr. Chandra Sain v. U.O.I. ;
[2022 U.P.T.C. (VOL.112) -
1861].
M/s Jaiprakash
Thekedar v. Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes and
another; [(2023 U.P.T.C.
(VOL.113) - 162]

2

Section
69 and
Section
132

Release on
Bail

Suresh Jajra
v. Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 213
(Rajasthan)

It was submitted by the petitioner that he is neither owner of Ayodhya Food Products or nor partner of the firm
and the petitioner and other co-accused had retracted the statement given by under Section 70 of GST Act. It
was further submitted that maximum punishment in this case is five years and conclusion of trial may take long
time and that similarly situated co-accused were enlarged on bail by the Court and by Co-ordinate Bench of the
Court.
The High Court considering the contentions put-forth and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case deemed it just and proper to enlarge the
petitioner on bail

-

3

Section
74

Writ Petition
not
maintainable
as matter
pending
before the
assessing
officer

North End Foods
Marketing (P.) Ltd.
v.
State of U.P
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 212
(Allahabad)

The petitioner was directed that all issues raised were still open to be agitated before the Assessing Officer and
therefore the High Court do not find any good ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed
of with the observation that all the issues raised by the petitioner, especially the issue with regard to the
jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed under Section 74, shall be raised before the Assessing Officer in
reply to the show cause notice, the subject matter of challenge herein

-

4

Section
169

Writ Petition
not
maintainable
as matter
pending
before the
assessing
officer

Global
Construction
v.
Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 204
(Jharkhand)

The High Court observed that firstly certified copy of impugned order was provided to the appellant on 19th
December 2020 which means that by that time the relaxation of limitation period as per the directions of the Apex
Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 03/2020 had commenced due to the COVID lockdown and secondly,
the booking journal or the track consignment report of the speed post does not contain the complete address of
the petitioner.
The High Court observed that it is apparent that notices were issued on incorrect or inadequate address. The
presumption of proof of service of notice is a rebuttable piece of evidence and the track consignment report
having an incomplete address of the petitioner, valid service of notice of the order in original cannot be presumed.
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act as quoted at paragraph-6 of the impugned appellate order also provides
that service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting it be registered post.
Thus, it was held that petitioners have therefore rightly contended that it could not have approached the appellate
authority earlier and thus the grounds of rejection of the memo of appeal was held to be not tenable on facts.

-

Snapshot-14-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

Ex-Parte order without following Natural Justice
-Taxability of supply of Pre-Fabricated Building
-Issuance of Fresh Provisional Attachment after completion of one Year
-Cancellation of Registration from Retrospective date

14.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

73

Ex-Parte
Assessment
order without
following
Principle of
Natural Justice

CICO Patel JV v.
Union of India
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 226
(Patna)

Notwithstanding the statutory remedy, the high court is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, an opinion is formed that
the order is bad in law on account of following reasons -
(a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to
represent his case;
(b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the
officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences;
(c) The authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances.

-

2

Para 5 of
Schedule
III and
9406

Whether supply
of Pre-Fabricated
Building is
supply of goods
or supply of
completed
building

Radiant
Enterprises P. Ltd.
v. Joint
Commissioner,
Central Goods and
Services Tax &
Central Excise
(Appeal I) [2023]
150 taxmann.com
225 (Calcutta)

The petitioner contended that since they have purchased a pre-fabricated building, which consisted of factory-made components
or units that are transported and assembled on-site to form complete building, therefore the same shall not be liable to tax by
virtue of Paragraph 5 of Schedule III i.e. Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building.
Considering the following reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority in holding against the petitioners, the High Court declined
to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Authority-
“I find that the appellant has purchased a Prefabricated Building classifiable under GST HSN Code 9406 from M/s. Eveready
Industries Ltd. Now a prefabricated building, informally a prefab, is a building that is manufactured and constructed using
prefabrication. It consists of factory-made components or units that are transported and assembled on-site to form the complete
building. Thus, it is evident from the invoice issued by M/s. Eveready Industries Ltd that they have supplied goods classifiable
under GST HSN Code 9406 to the appellant which is not specified in Section 7(2)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 and probably used
logistic services such as warehousing, flexi-storage by the appellant. Thus, it is evident that M/s. Eveready Industries Ltd have
not provided any Construction services of commercial buildings classifiable under GST service code number 99414. Thus, the
contention of the appellant cannot be sustainable”

-

3

Section
83

Issuance of
Fresh
Provisional
Attachment after
completion of
one Year

Madhav Copper
Ltd.
v. State of Gujarat
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 224
(Gujarat)

The petitioner contended that there was no power with the authorities to extend the provisional attachment beyond one year
with a fresh order.
The High Court observed that the proceedings for adjudication have already commenced with issuance of SCN under Section
74, therefore it would be rather a proper course to be adopted to direct the authorities to complete the adjudication proceedings
time-bound. Once the proceedings are over, the rights of the parties shall stand crystallized leaving the order of provisional
attachment to its own fate

-

4

Section
29

Cancellation of
Registration from
Retrospective
date wherein
SCN did not
provided any
such fact

Aditya Polymers v.
Commissioner of
Delhi Goods and
Services Tax
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 223
(Delhi)

The High Court observed that the SCN issued to the petitioner did not mention that the proper officer proposed to cancel the
registration with retrospective effect. Thus, the petitioner had no opportunity to address any proposed action of cancellation of
registration ab initio.
The High Court disposed of the petition with the direction that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration would take
effect from 11.12.2020 and not from 01.07.2017, since the petitioner submitted that the they would have no objection if the
registration is so cancelled from the date of SCN

-