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

Snapshot-30-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

-Can the Appellate Authority direct release of goods post filing of Appeal against detention of Goods
-Initiation of Proceedings by Second Officer on matter already seized by First officer by issuing DRC-01A
-Cancellation of registration for non-deposit of tax by supplier



Case Subject




129 and

Once order is
stayed, officer
can release the
goods subject to
such other
safeguards that
may be imposed
by the appellate
under the
respective Acts

Haresh Kumar
v. Assistant
(ST) [2023] 150
380 (Madras)

An order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 was issued. Petitioner filed appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate
Authority and paid 25% of the disputed penalty, whereas, respondents had imposed penalty equivalent to 100% value of goods that was detained.
It was contended that once there was a pre-deposit of the amount in terms of Section 107(6), the respondents ought to have released the goods.
The High Court held that once order is stayed, the respondents can release the goods subject to such other safeguards that may be imposed by
the appellate authorities under the respective Acts. The very purpose of fixing the mandatory pre-deposit is to do away with the procedure of
granting stay after hearing, which was delaying the disposal of the appeal earlier. The Officer who detained the goods becomes functus officio,
once there is a mandatory pre-deposit, the order has no force and all further recovery proceedings will be subject to the final outcome of the
appeal. The High court directed the petitioner to deposit the maximum penalty of 200% of the tax to safeguard the interest of the revenue.
Cases Referred- TCI Freight v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2022] 143 115 (Madras


73 and
Section 6

Second Officer
cannot initiate
proceedings by
issuing DRC-01
and passing the
order on the
same matter
which is already
seized by the
first officer by
issuing DRC01A

SSB Petro
Products v.
State Tax
[2023] 150
381 (Calcutta)

In the instant case, issue before the High Court was whether an officer (referred as “second officer”) could have initiated fresh proceedings by
issue of DRC-01 and passing order thereafter, when another officer (referred as “first officer”) was seized of the matter and intimation in Form
GSTDRC-01A dated 05.03.2021 was issued to which the appellants had submitted their reply dated 08.03.2021 and the said reply was neither
considered nor rejected and the matter was kept pending. The appellant further stated that he was not aware of the said notice for being uploaded
in the portal and they came to know of the same only after the sum of Rs. 1,84,930/- was paid from their electronic credit ledger and immediately
thereafter, the appellants applied for a copy of the order and thereafter preferred the appeal but by then the period of limitation for filing the appeal
had expired.
The High Court observed that the option which was available to the first officer was to consider the representation/reply and if not satisfied, could
have proceeded to issue SCN under Section 74(1) of the Act which option the first officer did not exercise and the matter was left to linger. Thus,
the preliminary proceedings could not have been initiated by the second officer when proceeding initiated by the first officer for the very same
amount on the very same allegation was not taken to the logical end. It was further observed that when the statutory appeal for the order passed
by the second officer was pending before the appellate authority, the first officer had dropped the proceedings. From the final report of the first
officer, it was seen that the proceedings were closed by the first officer only on 24.01.2023. Thus, for all purposes, it was deemed that the
proceedings initiated by the first officer pursuant to intimation dated 05.03.2021 had attained finality and on the said date, the appeal as against
the proceedings initiated by the second officer was already pending before the appellate authority.
Thus, the High Court considering peculiar facts and circumstances held that the appeal should not be treated to be as time barred


29 and

Cancellation of
registration of
the recipient for
availment of ITC
as the supplier
did not deposit
the tax

Electro Steel
Corporation v.
State of
[2023] 150

The registration of the petitioner was cancelled on account of the allegation that they have availed excess credit than the ITC accrued in GSTR2A/2B in violation of Provisions of Section 16. It was contended by the petitioner that they had duly paid the amount to the supplier but supplier
neither filed the return and nor filed GSTR-1.
The High Court observed that the claim of the petitioner than they have paid the entire amount to the supplier neds verification that whether at all
the entire amount being paid by them was towards the invoices raised by the supplier. The High Court directed that in case the verification exercise
reveals that even after due payment to the supplier, the same has not been deposited, it would be open for the competent authority to take
appropriate decision