#TaxmannPPT | Analysis of Latest Judgments in GST

Round up of the Latest Cases for January 2024

S. No.

Section

Case Citation

Relevant Text

1.

Section 3

R.C. Infra Digital Solutions v.

Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 272 (All.)

Notification No. 14/2017 dated 01.07.2017 was not ultra vires to the powers provided to the Government under the CGST Act, 2017.

2.

Section 5

R.C. Infra Digital Solutions v.

Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 272 (All.)

Officer of DGSTI was proper officer in relation to the function to be performed under the CGST Act, 2017 as contemplated under Section 2 (91) of the CGST Act, 2017, and as such, was entitled to issue summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 in connection with the inquiry initiated against the petitioner.

Aasanvish Technology (P.) Ltd. v.

Director General of GST Intelligence [2024] 158 taxmann.com 50 (Delhi)

Multiple notices were issued and therefore highest demand was covered under notice issued to Belz Tech Private Limited, which was registered in Thane and by applying paragraph 7.1 of the Circular dated 9-2-2018 amended by the Circular dated 12-3-2022, as set out above, would thus be applicable

3

4.

Section 6

Vivek Narsaria v.State of Jharkhand [2024] 158 taxmann.com 523 (Jharkhand)

Proceedings at the instance of State Authorities or the Preventive Wing or the DGGI were at initial stage and the proceedings on the basis of 'Search & Seizure' by the State Authorities, was prior in point of time, therefore all proceedings transferred to the state authorities

5

Section 9

Sree Ramu College of Arts and Science v.

Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling [2024] 158 taxmann.com 417 (Mad.)

Services provided to petitioner by the University relating to grant or renewal of affiliation not exempted by way of Entry No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) Dated 28th June 2018 since not related to admission to, or conduct of examination

6.

Tvl.Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. v.

Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 302 (Mad.)

Voucher per se is neither a goods or a service is correct in view of Section 7 r/w III Schedule to GST Enactments.

7.

Mahavir Sharmik and Nirman Swalambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Bihar [2024] 158 taxmann.com 496 (Patna)

Work of collection and disposal of waste materials from each household, shop and commercial centres as also sanitation work of drainages/road in the specified seventeen wards of the Municipality is not a works contract as there is no supply of goods as would be required by the definition of 'works contract’ and thus exempt from Levy of GST.

8.

Naga Ltd. v. Puducherry Authority for Advance Ruling [2024] 158 taxmann.com 306 (Mad.)

If the wheat imported qualifies as an "agricultural produce", the mere fact that the buyer of "agricultural produce" intended to subject it to various other processes subsequently resulting in conversion of wheat into maida, atta and sooji would not take the services of loading, unloading, packing, storage and warehousing of the "agricultural produce" out of Serial No. 54(e) of the Exemption Notification.

9.

Section 16

Tvl.Kavin HP Gas Gramin Vitrak v.

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2024] 158 taxmann.com 204 (Mad.)

If GSTN would have provided option for filing GST Return without payment of tax or incomplete GSTR-3B, the dealer would be eligible for claiming of input tax credit. The same was not provided in GSTN network hence, the dealers are restricted to claim ITC on the ground of nonfiling of GSTR-3B within prescribed time. if the option of filing incomplete filing of GSTR-3B are provided in the GSTN network the dealers would avail the claim and determine self-assessed ITC in online.

10.

Rule 36(4)

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vivo Mobile India (P.) Ltd. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 276 (SC)

SLP filed against the decision of High court in Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2023] 155 taxmann.com 324/100 GST 577 (All.) was dismissed having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, court was not inclined to interfere in the matter. The reason why It was so said is that although the scheme was between March, 2020 to August, 2020, in the instant case, the respondents had sought benefit or extension of the scheme only by one month, that is, September, 2020

S. No.

Case Citation

Relevant Text

11.

Hari Om Metals v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com 605 (Delhi)

Retrospective Cancellation results in denial of ITC to recipients of tax payer, therefore registration should be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted

12.

Een Een Sales Corporation v.

Asstt.

Commissioner CGST [2024] 158 taxmann.com 411 (Delhi)

"Non compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed." -Show Cause Notice and consequential order bereft of reason proposing cancellation of registration held to be vague and invalid

13.

Sant Ram v. Delhi State GST [2024] 158 taxmann.com 253 (Delhi)

Registration cancelled merely on the basis of a letter received from another authority and the said letter was neither attached to the impugned SCN nor did the impugned SCN referred to the contents thereon held to be invalid

14.

Akshar Enterprise v. State of Gujarat [2024] 158 taxmann.com 123 (Guj.)

"Rule 21(a)- a person does not conduct any business from declared place of business”-Show Cause Notice and consequential order bereft of reason proposing cancellation of registration held to be vague and invalid

Raj Enterprises v.

Superintendent, Range 25 GST Division [2024] 158 taxmann.com 143 (Delhi)

Sole ground for cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was that it had not filed its return for a continuous period of six months. Absent anything more, this would not be sufficient ground to cancel the petitioner's registration even for the period during which the petitioner had filed its returns

16.

Shree Shyam Metals v.

Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com 144 (Delhi)

"The DDGST VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 20-9-2022 ISSUED CIDE F. No. DGGI/GZU/GR-H/INV/291/22-23/14255 HAS INFORMED THAT THE PARTY IS NON EXISTENT". the said letter was neither attached to the impugned SCN nor did the impugned SCN referred to the contents thereon held to be invalid.

17.

Kali Shankar Enterprises v.

Additional Commissioner [2024] 158 taxmann.com 190 (A.P)

"filing nil returns continuously for more than 6 months". –Cancellation on such ground is invalid since Section 29(2) does not contain any such ground for cancelation. In the Rules also there is no such ground for cancellation. In the show cause notice or in the order it is not the case of the respondents that the 'nil returns' were filed incorrectly, contravening any provision of the GST Act or the Rules

18.

Kundan Impex v. Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes [2024] 158 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi)

Cancellation set aside as it did not give any reason or detail but merely refers to letter dated 12.06.2023 of Assistant Commissioner (Okhla Division) GST, South Delhi Commissionerate and that too was not provided

19.

Suresh Kumar Chaudhary v.

Assisstant Commissioner [2024] 158 taxmann.com 299 (Cal.)

Rejection of Revocation Application held to be valid as , there was a categorical finding that at the time when the registration was obtained, the appellant had uploaded the electricity payment receipt, which was found to be a forged document and as also the rental agreement

15.

Section

Section 29

S. No.

Section

Case Citation

Relevant Text

20.

Section 29

Hello Plastic (P.) Ltd. v.

Commissioner, Delhi GST [2024] 158 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi)

"letter no. 26 received from DGGI regarding fraudulent purchase“-The court observed that the impugned order did not disclose any reason for cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. The space available for filling in the said reasons, was left blank. The court held that it is clear from the above that the impugned SCN cannot be sustained as it does not clearly set out the allegations required to be met by the petitioner.

My Trading Overseas v.

Commissioner Delhi Goods & Service Tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com 558 (Delhi)

"1 In case, Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.” - Show Cause Notice and consequential order bereft of reason proposing cancellation of registration held to be vague and invalid

Anvita Associates v. Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 660 (Bom.)

Petitioner allowed to rectify the inadvertent error made in filing of GSTR-1 for the Year 2017-18

Akshaya Building Solution v.

Asstt. Commissioner of CGST & CE [2024] 158 taxmann.com 471 (Mad.)

Inadvertent Error in filing of GSTR-1 allowed to be rectified

Since in the present case, the tax amount has already been credited to the cash ledger i.e. Government Account within the prescribed time limit, i.e., before due date, the question of payment of interest would not arise.

21.

22.

Section 37

23.

24.

Section 50

Eicher Motors Ltd. Superintendent of GST Central Excise [2024] taxmann.com 593 (Mad.)

v. and 158

25.

Section 54

VSM Weavess India (P.) Ltd. v.

Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 519 (Mad.)

Refund claim for zero rated exports does not disentitle petitioner from claiming refund for unutilized ITC under inverted duty structure

26.

Suchita Millenium Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of CGST & CE [2024] 158 taxmann.com 120 (Cal.)

The ground on the basis of which refund application was rejected appeared to have not been specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice dated 7th June, 2022 and therefore, rejection of the application for claim for refund on the said ground is in total violation of the principles of natural justice

27.

Mittal Footcare v. Commissioner of CGST [2024] 158 taxmann.com 145 (Delhi)

A refund cannot be rejected merely on the ground of non-supply of authenticated document. In case party is entitled to refund, it is open to the Department to call for further clarification or documents as may be required to satisfy itself that refund is due and payable.

S. No.

Section

Case Citation

Relevant Text

28.

Section 54

Real Prince Spintex (P.) Ltd. v.

Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 191 (Guj.)

Once the Court has issued the directions, the same are binding upon the respondent-authorities and the respondent-authorities had no reason to take a different view than the directions issued by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

29.

Section 56

Baba Super Minerals (P.) Ltd. v.

Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 221 (Raj.)

'the date of receipt of the application', is to be read as date of receipt of a 'complete application' i.e. in case, there are deficiencies, from the date deficiencies are removed. Interest only payable when there is delay in grant of refund beyond 60 days from date of receipt of complete application after removing the deficiencies

30.

Section 65

PBL Transport Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 552 (A.P)

it was not disputed that petitioner had filed the reply and the same was not considered while finalizing the findings of the audit. The Final Audit Report is therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice as also the statutory provisions. Consequently, the impugned Final Audit Report was liable to be quashed.

Narendra Polypack Industries v.

Additional Director General Directorate General of GST Intelligence [2024] 158 taxmann.com 525 (Delhi)

Search was carried out after recording the reasons to believe that petitioner was engaged in clandestine manufacturing and supply of their product, i.e. various types of laminations. Thus, silver, though being a movable asset, was not "goods" liable for confiscation while exercising power U/Sec 67 in relation to products being traded by petitioner

32.

Harp Resorts (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 354 (Bom.)

Department is duty-bound to comply with the requirement of Section 67(5) as Section provides that the person from whose custody any documents are seized shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an authorised officer at such place and time as such officer may indicate in this behalf except where making such copies or taking such extracts may, in the opinion of the proper officer, prejudicially affect the investigation.

33.

Santosh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 194 (Delhi)

The fact that petitioner had purchased the goods from a supplier, which was found to be non-existent at his principal place of business, has a direct link in forming the belief that the petitioner wrongfully availed of the ITC

34.

Santosh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 194 (Delhi)

The provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act do not preclude the central officers from conducting an inspection for concluding an ongoing investigation merely because a prior inspection or search was conducted by the DGST authorities.

35.

Santosh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 194 (Delhi)

Amount deposited through FORM GST DRC-03 from the laptop carried by the visiting team and Petitioner filed the present petition on 23-112022, that is, within a period of less than ten days, claiming refund of the amount paid. In view of the above, it was directed to the respondents to refund sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner in FORM GST DRC-03 on 12-11-2022.

36

Santosh Kumar Gupta v.

Commissioner, Delhi Goods & Services Tax Act [2024] 158 taxmann.com 226 (Delhi)

Authorization dated 18-10-2022 was issued by selecting all reasons (except that the taxpayer had availed of a refund) as set out in clause 'A' of the said form. The reasons, as stated, also exhaustively comprise of reasons for issuing such authorization as set out in Section 67(1)(a) of the DGST Act. Therefore, it does not appear that the authorization was issued without specifically noting the relevant reason for such search

31.

Section 67

S. No.

Section

Case Citation

Relevant Text

37.

Section 67

Santosh Kumar Gupta v.

Commissioner, Delhi Goods & Services Tax Act [2024] 158 taxmann.com 226 (Delhi)

Respondents had not issued an acknowledgment in FORM GST DRC-04. Thus, procedure under Rule 142 of Delhi Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereafter 'the DGST Rules') was not followed.

Santosh Kumar Gupta v.

Commissioner, Delhi Goods & Services Tax Act [2024] 158 taxmann.com 226 (Delhi)

Refund of the amount deposited during Survey allowed as there was no acknowledgment that the invoices covering supplies from those suppliers were fake and the petitioner had not paid the consideration and the applicable GST to the said suppliers. There is no adjudication of the question whether the taxpayer was required to reverse the ITC in respect of purchases made from dealers whose registration was cancelled after the receipt of supplies, albeit retrospectively. The Court also observed that in the present case, the petitioner has stoutly disputed that the reversal of ITC was voluntary. Undisputedly, the same has been made while the petitioner's premises were being searched and he was being subjected to questioning/enquiries. The Court did not find it difficult to accept that the petitioner may have found the circumstances intimidating and had, accordingly, agreed to reverse the ITC. The court was further unable to accept that the reversal of ITC was made voluntarily without any suggestion or encouragement by the officers. But for the search continuing till late at night, there were no circumstances which would, in normal course, lead the petitioner to reverse the ITC late at night.

Ingram Micro India (P.) Ltd. v.

STO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 554 (Mad.)

Order passed for rejection of ITC for non-payment to creditors within 180 days held to be invalid as passed taking the balance of PAN india Creditors of a multi state registered entity. The court observed that under the Companies Act, 2013, every company is required to file financial statements in respect of its entire operations and there is no provision for filing State-specific financial statements. However, the petitioner has submitted a certificate from a Chartered Accountant stating that the trade payables attributable to the State of Tamil Nadu are Rs. 1816.48 millions. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner would provide all the invoices issued by the suppliers with regard to the aggregate sum of Rs. 1816.48 millions. It was held that the assessing authority has clearly not applied its mind before drawing the conclusions extracted above.

40

Mondelez India Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner (ST) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 497 (TELANGANA)

Since the proceeding had been initiated under section 73 of the Act, the very provision of Section 73 of the Act starts with the words where it appears to be for the authority concerned which by itself meant that at the time where the authority appeared to found it necessary for initiating the proceedings, there ought to had been some material, information or even sort of a complaint available with them as regards the suspicious transactions or the alleged evasion of tax made by the petitioner

41.

Sri Ganapathy Steels v. Dy. STO II (ST) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 52 (Mad.)

Although the order passed by the respondent cannot be faulted as the petitioner failed to respond to notice in DRC -01 dated 11-3-2023 issued for the respective Assessment years, the fact remained that dispute pertained to ITC availed by petitioner on common suppliers to the petitioner and petitioner’s sister company. Similar proceeding were initiated against the petitioner's sister company vide notice issued on 67-2022. Thus, considering the fact that the order was passed in favour of the petitioner's sister company, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the cases back to the respondent to pass a fresh order

38.

39.

Section 73/74

42.

Section 75

Alok Steel Industries (P.) Ltd. v.

State of Jharkhand [2024] 158 taxmann.com 604 (Jhar.)

Summary SCN and consequential order set aside as no opportunity of being heard provided and also no SCN issued and only a Summary of Show Cause Notice has been issued to the Petitioner

43.

Section 75

Menacherry Lonappan Jayan v.

STO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 610 (Ker.)

Order passed without considering reply of petitioner was violative of Principle of Natural Justice

S. No.

Section

Case Citation

Relevant Text

44.

IJM Concrete Products (P.) Ltd. v. State of M.P. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 695 (M.P.)

Although, in the first portion, Section 75(4) talks about a specific request, the portion after the word 'or' makes it clear like cloudless sky that opportunity of hearing is required to be given, even in those cases where no such request is made but adverse decision is contemplated against such person

45.

MakeMyTrip (India) (P.) Ltd. v.

STO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 492 (Mad.)

Non-consideration of reply to the SCN certainly prejudices petitioner and denies petitioner a reasonable opportunity to establish its position

46.

Goutam Bhowmik v. State of West Bengal [2024] 158 taxmann.com 399 (Cal.)

Where an adverse decision is contemplated against the person, such a person even need not to request for opportunity of personal hearing and it is mandatory for the authority concerned to afford opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order adverse to such person

47.

Brakes India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt.

Commissioner (ST) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 219 (Mad.)

Show cause notice was served on the petitioner by e-mail on 25-10-2023. The show cause notice fixed the personal hearing on the same date at 2.00 pm, i.e. within two hours from the time of receipt of e-mail. Consequently, thus reasonable opportunity was not provided to the petitioner to submit relevant documents and, more importantly, explain the facts and circumstances

48.

Eastern Machine Bricks & Tiles Industries v. State of U.P [2024] 158 taxmann.com 384 (All.)

It was further submitted that as the petitioner had already cancelled its registration voluntarily, it was not required to check the web portal.

It was further stated that revenue proceeded on the basis of a Special Investigation Branch report (SIB report) behind the back of the petitioner without providing a copy of the same to the petitioner.

The phrase, denoting "hear the other side," is emblematic of the sacrosanct right vested in individuals to be accorded a fair and impartial hearing before the adjudication of their rights or interests

49.

A.H. Enterprises v. Dy. CTO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 220 (Mad.)

The Court observed that In view of the statutory mandate for personal hearing and non-compliance therewith, the impugned order calls for interference. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11-10-2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration.

50.

Tata Steel Ltd v. State of Chhattisgarh [2024] 158 taxmann.com 256 (Chhattisgarh)

It was quite clear that though in the opening para of the notice the petitioner was granted the opportunity to appear before the authority for a personal hearing, no details in this regard were mentioned in the notice and the date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue were left blank. Therefore, given the contention put forth on either side, the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017 and the contents of the notice dated 11-8-2021, the petition was disposed of thereby directing the authorities to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017.

51.

Basheer Bags v. Dy. STO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 583 (Mad.)

A registered person carrying on a small business did not have the opportunity to respond to the claim made by the tax department with regard to the discrepancy between the returns in Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B. The high court thus held that solely for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioner.

Section 75

S. No.

Section

Case Citation

Relevant Text

52.

Section 107

Dial For Cool v. State of U.P. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 518 (All.)

Since the provision uses the word “communicated” for the order against which appeal has to be filed therefore, while rejecting the appeal on account of limitation, authority has to make a finding in regard to the mode of copy of the order and also whether service upon the concerned person is complete

53.

Jey Tech Moulds Dies v. Dy. Commissioner (GST)-II [2024] 158 taxmann.com 15 (Mad.)

In view of provision of Section 107 if petitioner paid 10% of the outstanding tax dues along with penalty, the respondent proceedings will be automatically stayed. In such view of the matter, in the present case, since the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 83,000/-, the respondent is supposed to have de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner as per Section 107 of the Act. Thus, respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1810-2023 and de-freeze the petitioner's bank account, upon the production of proof of deposit of Rs. 83,000/- or 10% of the total demand made by the respondent.

54.

Optum Global Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2024] 158 taxmann.com 20 (Pun. & Har.)

Appellate Authority rejected the appeal being not maintainable on account of the fact that it had been presented in a manner by filing it offline (manual) on 31-8-2020 against the order dated 4-6-2020. It was contended by the department that Rule was amended on 4-8-2023 and the appeals have been filed earlier.Relying upon the judgments (Go Daddy India Domains and Hosting Services Pvt Ltd v. State of Haryana, decided on 29-4-2023 CWP-9051-2023 and Ali Cotton Mill v. Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), 2022 (56) G.S. T.L., 270 (A.P.) Writ Petition No. 3308 of 2021) wherein it was held that it is a highly technical ground for dismissing the appeal and set aside the said order and issued directions to hear the appeal on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties

Vardan Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt.

CST [2024] 158 taxmann.com 89 (SC)

The Court stated that ordinarily, it may have refrained from interfering, but because there was an E-way bill that was generated and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, thus they were inclined to vary the orders passed by the High Court. The Court thus held that ends of justice would be served if the penalty amount is reduced to 50% of the penalty imposed, i.e., Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs). Therefore, Rs. 54,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty four lakhs) being the tax imposed, is upheld and penalty would now be Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs), totalling to Rs. 81,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty one lakhs), which shall be paid by the appellant.

55

Section 129

Order not to be treated as Precedent-It is made clear that this order has been passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and shall not be treated as a precedent. Pending application stands disposed of.

56.

Rawal Wasia Yarn Dying (P.) Ltd. v.

CCT [2024] 158 taxmann.com 609 (All.)

No levy of penalty U/Sec 129 since no intent to evade the duty could be ascertained only on the allegation that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled

57.

Shri Sai Enterprises v. State of U.P [2024] 158 taxmann.com 125 (All.)

Petitioner contended that since he was the owner of the goods, clause 6 of Circular No./GST-2018-19/1819078/36/Commercial Tax dated 31 December, 2018 would apply to him and petitioner should be treated as owner of the goods as the goods were detained along with proper e-invoice and e-way bill. The Court observed release of the goods upon payment penalty is required to be made under section 129 (1) (a) and the order passed quantifying penalty under section 129 (1) (b) was bad in law

58.

Amil v. State of U.P [2024] 158 taxmann.com 559 (All.)

The Court observed that the authorities have recorded a categorical finding to the effect that selling dealer, M/s. Sunshine Overseas was registered at Shri Ram Colony, Siya Wali Masjid, Rajeev Nagar, North East Delhi, Delhi. The e-way bill mentioned the goods to have been dispatched from the said place. The statement of the driver recorded disclosed that goods were loaded from Mayapuri, Delhi, which is 18 kms. away from Rajeev Nagar. On physical verification of the premises of M/s. Sunshine Overseas, it was clear that no business transaction was being done from that place and the GST registration was suspended on 45-2022. The selling dealer till date has not responded to the notice of the taxing authorities nor has come forward to state that goods were sent by him through the e-way bill alleged to have been generated from the portal from the address mentioned therein. The taxing authorities had also scrutinized the records of the selling dealer for the assessment year 2021-22 and found that it was not indulging in any sale and purchase and bogus transactions were only made for claiming ITC. The respondent no. 4 had recorded categorical finding that no reply was given disclosing the banking transaction made between the parties. Once, it was found that selling dealer was bogus firm, the goods carrying the e-way bill generated by such firm was of no benefit to the petitioners as the same was used for transiting the goods from non bona fide dealer from undisclosed place. The writ petition was dismissed.

SN

Section

Case Citation

Relevant Text

59.

Section 129

Roli Enterprises v. State of U.P. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 468 (All.)

The only controversy involved was with regard to non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill. The undisputed facts were that firstly the bilty in fact had the details of the truck that was carrying the goods; secondly, the goods were not in variance with the invoice; and thirdly, the Department has not been able to indicate any kind of intention of the petitioner to evade tax. The court observed that the facts were quite similar to earlier judgement (M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited through Authorized Representative v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another reported in 2023 U.P.T.C. [Vol.113]-173) and there was no reason to take a different view of the matter, as the invoice itself contained the details of the truck and the error committed by the petitioner was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax.

60

S. V. Brothers v. State of U.P. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 193 (All.)

The Court firstly distinguished that the judgement relied upon the by the revenue by stating that the facts of the case of Amil and another (supra) were distinguishable in as much as in that case the specific finding recorded was that the consignor firm was a non-existent and fake firm. It was found not to be in existence at the place it was registered. Thus, there was categorical evidence on record to establish that the firm was existing only on papers to reap benefit of inverse tax credit. The e-way bill was held to have been generated for transporting goods from non-bonafide dealer from undisclosed place. However, in the instant case, there was no such finding. Although, the registration of the consignor firm was suspended subsequently but it is not the case of the department that the firm does not exist. It was also not disputed that the registration of the petitioner firm was cancelled after the passing of the impugned order. It was also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was a nonbonafide dealer. Therefore, the finding that the parties had under valued the goods or there was any intention to avoid payment of correct amount as tax may justify seizure and penalty but cannot be made ground to not treat the petitioner as owner of the goods. The respondents ought to have examined the documents accompanying the goods at the time of seizure in terms of their own Circular dated 31-12-2018 in determining the said issue. Having not been done so, it was held that the order to the extent it sought to reject the prayer for release of goods in favour of the petitioner, cannot be sustained.

61.

Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v.

State of U.P.[2024] 158 taxmann.com 200 (All.)

The vehicle was intercepted and the goods and vehicle were seized on the ground that the vehicle number in Part-B of the e-way bill was incorrect as the e-way bill showed the vehicle bearing No. DL1 AA 3552 instead of DL1 AA 5332. A typographical error in the e-way bill without any further material to substantiate the intention to evade tax should not and cannot lead to imposition of penalty. In the case of M/s. Varun Beverages Limited (supra) there was a typographical error in the e-way bill of 4 letters (HR - 73). In the present case, instead of '5332', '3552' was incorrectly entered into the e-way bill which clearly appears to be a typographical error. In certain cases where lapses by the dealers are major, it may be deemed that there is an intention to evade tax but not so in every case. Typically when the error is a minor error of the nature found in this particular case, imposition of penalty under section 129 was without jurisdiction and illegal in law.

62.

Section 159

Jak Communications (P.) Ltd. v.

Dy. CTO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 332 (Mad.)

the notices dated 24-12-2021, 24-3-2023 and 15-5-2023 and the assessment order dated 25-5-2023 were uploaded in the web portal in the "View Additional Notices and Orders" column and the same were not at all physically served to the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner was unaware about the said notice. Hence, the reasons provided by the petitioner for being unaware of the notice, which was uploaded in the web portal, are appears to be genuine.

63.

Section 161

Sajal Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal [2024] 158 taxmann.com 690 (Cal.)

Order suffered from illegality in as much as appellate authority had effectively rewritten its earlier order in the garb of rectification, which was impermissible in exercise of its powers under section 161 of the Act

64.

Sakkeena.C v. STO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 361 (Ker.)

Rectification cannot result in review and is permissible only when there are errors apparent on the face of the record, in a situation where SCN was contested. When SCN was not contested, resultant order passed assumes the nature of an agreed order and rectification application will not lie to correct a factual mistake therein

65

Satyam Auto Components (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 360 (Pun. & Har.)

Petitioners allowed to rectify error made in submitting GSTR-1

S. No. 66.

Section

Case Citation

Relevant Text

Section 161

Divya S. R. v. Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 356 (Ker.)

The petitioner had received IGST tax credit through inter state inward supply of goods. The total amount of IGST Credit as reflected in GSTR 2A was Rs. 1,14,957/-. The petitioner while preferring monthly return in GSTR 3B for July, 2017, by mistake claimed the entire input tax credit of Rs. 1,14,957/- under the heads of CGST and SGST, instead of claiming it under the head IGST. Department counsel stated that application has been filed only on 21-12-2023 and that Court may direct the 6th respondent for consideration of the said application filed by the petitioner, and that the 6th respondent shall consider the application, in accordance with law, and pass necessary orders. Considering the aforesaid submissions, and the facts of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the 6th respondent to consider Ext.P4 application filed by the petitioner/assessee and pass necessary orders thereon expeditiously, in accordance with law.

Thank You! For More Information, Visit: https://taxmann.com/ Follow us on Social Media

Download Taxmann App