S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section
98

Decision of AAR is
void-abinitio when
the fact regarding
pendency of
proceedings was
not brought before
the AAR

Srico Projects (P.) Ltd.
[2023] 150 taxmann.com 295
(AAR- TELANGANA)

Section 98(2) of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017 states that Authority for Advance Ruling shall not admit
the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any
proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act. Therefore the
application was liable to be rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017. Taxpayer has
not brought the issue to the notice of the Authority for Advance Ruling at any stage of the Advance
Ruling proceedings including at the time of the personal hearing dated 28.06.2022. Therefore the
applicant has obtained the Advance Ruling by suppressing the facts and hence the Order issued in
the reference 5th cited is liable to be declared as void ab initio

-

2

Section
29 and
Section
30

Penalty/Late Fee
for delay in filing of
Return cannot be
levied upon
Taxpayer when the
application for
revocation of
cancellation of
registration was
rejected without
any valid Show
cause notice and
reason

Ishwar Chand Proprietor of
Bhagwati Trading Co. v.
Union of India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 294 (Delhi)

The High Court observed that the order dated 14.12.2020, rejecting the petitioner's application for
revocation of cancellation of GSTIN registration was unsustainable. It provided no reason as to why
the petitioner's application was rejected. The only reason was that the petitioner had not responded
to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.10.2020. It was hard to accept that there could be any meaningful
response to the said Show Cause Notice. It provided no reason at all for proposing to reject the
petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation.
The petitioner's principal contention was that it had already complied with the requirement of filing the
returns on the date when the order cancelling its registration was passed and, therefore, the said order
was unsustainable.
The High Court was thus of the view that from the date of the petitioner filing an application for
revocation of its cancellation, that is, 16.10.2020, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not
filing its returns during the period when the registration stood cancelled. Thus, for the purpose of
calculating any penalty for the late filing of the returns, the period, 16.10.2020 to 22.04.2022, is liable
to be excluded

-

3

99

Architectural
Services provided
to Local Authority
for purposes
referred in 2th
Schedule of Article
243W of
Constitution of
India

Ishwar Chand Proprietor of
Bhagwati Trading Co. v.
Union of India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 294 (Delhi)

-'Architectural Consultancy Service' provided by the applicant to Surat Municipal Corporation [SMC]
for construction of SMIMER Hospital & College Campus is covered under entry no. 3 of notification
No. l212017-Central (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 & thus is exempt from GST.
-If the applicant provides sub contract of pure services to another contractor of the SMC the supply
would not fall within the ambit of entry no. 3 of the notification No. l212017-Central (Rate)
dated28.6.2017 and would be leviable to GST

Dilip Kumar & Company
[20 ] 8 (361 ) E.L.T. 577
(SC)