GST Case Laws News

Whether the attachment to the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01, containing the determination of tax, constitutes a valid Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73(1) of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017?

Whether the attachment to the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01, containing the determination of tax, constitutes a valid Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73(1) of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017? HeadNote: Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Section 73; CGST Rules, 2017 – Rules 142(1)(a), 26(3); Section 75(4) – Held that issuance of a Summary of Show Cause […]

Whether the attachment to the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01, containing the determination of tax, constitutes a valid Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73(1) of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017? Read Post »

GSTAT First Judgment: Jurisdiction of the GSTAT is different from the Jurisdiction of the High Court u/s Section 100 of CPC; GSTAT has power to examine question of facts also

GSTAT First Judgment: Jurisdiction of the GSTAT is different from the Jurisdiction of the High Court u/s Section 100 of CPC; GSTAT has power to examine question of facts also Facts of the Case The Appellant, Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd., engaged in EPC services and registered under GST, challenged the First Appellate Order dated

GSTAT First Judgment: Jurisdiction of the GSTAT is different from the Jurisdiction of the High Court u/s Section 100 of CPC; GSTAT has power to examine question of facts also Read Post »

An order cannot travel beyond the confines of the preceding notice to show-cause and a person who has been issued a notice to show cause on a particular point cannot be blindsided by passing an order on an entirely different point | Section 75(7) of the CGST Act, 2017 is a statutory expression of the said very well settled principle of law only – Vedant Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax, Jorasanko and Jorabagan Charge and Ors. – Calcutta High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

An order cannot travel beyond the confines of the preceding notice to show-cause and a person who has been issued a notice to show cause on a particular point cannot be blindsided by passing an order on an entirely different point | Section 75(7) of the CGST Act, 2017 is a statutory expression of the said very well settled principle of law only – Vedant Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax, Jorasanko and Jorabagan Charge and Ors. – Calcutta High Court Read Post »

Section 75(7) of CGST Act, 2017 expressly prohibits demand in excess of the amount specified in the notice and on grounds not specified therein – R.T.S. Electricals and Civil India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. – Allahabad High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

Section 75(7) of CGST Act, 2017 expressly prohibits demand in excess of the amount specified in the notice and on grounds not specified therein – R.T.S. Electricals and Civil India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Printing activities where content is supplied by customers in digital form constitutes a composite supply with the principal supply being a service, falling under SAC 998386 (photographic and videographic processing services), attracting 18% GST; HSN 4911 applies to supply of goods where content is owned by the supplier, not where printing is done on customer-supplied content – Stark Photo Book Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) Special Squad No. IV and Ors. – Kerala High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

Printing activities where content is supplied by customers in digital form constitutes a composite supply with the principal supply being a service, falling under SAC 998386 (photographic and videographic processing services), attracting 18% GST; HSN 4911 applies to supply of goods where content is owned by the supplier, not where printing is done on customer-supplied content – Stark Photo Book Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) Special Squad No. IV and Ors. – Kerala High Court Read Post »

If there is a conflict between the GST Act, 2017 and the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (or the RDB Act, 1993), the priority of the charge must be determined based on the order in which the charges were created. If the charge under the GST Act was created prior to that under the SARFAESI Act, the GST Act will prevail, and vice versa – The Canara Bank Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. – Karnataka High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

If there is a conflict between the GST Act, 2017 and the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (or the RDB Act, 1993), the priority of the charge must be determined based on the order in which the charges were created. If the charge under the GST Act was created prior to that under the SARFAESI Act, the GST Act will prevail, and vice versa – The Canara Bank Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

There is no considerable difference between the corresponding provisions of the CGST and the Customs Act on the issue of Advance Rulings – Apple India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Customs Authority for Advance Rulings and Ors. – Bombay High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

There is no considerable difference between the corresponding provisions of the CGST and the Customs Act on the issue of Advance Rulings – Apple India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Customs Authority for Advance Rulings and Ors. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

The expression “communication” used in Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 means service will become communication if the authority reaches out to the assessee but mere uploading an order passed under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 on GST portal by no stretch of imagination would satisfy the requirement of communicating to the assessee – Sharp Tanks and Structurals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) and Anr. – Madras High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

The expression “communication” used in Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 means service will become communication if the authority reaches out to the assessee but mere uploading an order passed under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 on GST portal by no stretch of imagination would satisfy the requirement of communicating to the assessee – Sharp Tanks and Structurals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) and Anr. – Madras High Court Read Post »

[Section 73 and Section 74 of CGST Act]: A single Show Cause Notice (SCN) or a Single Composite Assessment Order cannot be passed in relation to more than one tax period of either a month if the assessment is taken up before the due date for filing of the annual return or for more than one year if the due date for filing of annual return has been reached – S J Constructions and Ors. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner and Ors. – Andhra Pradesh High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

[Section 73 and Section 74 of CGST Act]: A single Show Cause Notice (SCN) or a Single Composite Assessment Order cannot be passed in relation to more than one tax period of either a month if the assessment is taken up before the due date for filing of the annual return or for more than one year if the due date for filing of annual return has been reached – S J Constructions and Ors. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner and Ors. – Andhra Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Whether a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, based solely on discrepancies noticed in the returns filed, could have been validly issued by Proper Officer without due compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 61 read with Rule 99 of the CGST Rules – Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Ors. – Gauhati High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

Whether a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, based solely on discrepancies noticed in the returns filed, could have been validly issued by Proper Officer without due compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 61 read with Rule 99 of the CGST Rules – Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Ors. – Gauhati High Court Read Post »

In case of reduction of GST rates, non-reduction of MPR/ price cannot be sought to be justified on the ground that the quantity has been increased or that there was some scheme which justifies the increase in price – Sharma Trading Company Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

In case of reduction of GST rates, non-reduction of MPR/ price cannot be sought to be justified on the ground that the quantity has been increased or that there was some scheme which justifies the increase in price – Sharma Trading Company Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Under the provisions of the GST Act, for the purposes of entertaining the Appeal and making a pre-deposit, the Appellant can always utilize the electronic credit ledgers to comply with the said condition – The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs. Tenormac Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – Bombay High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

Under the provisions of the GST Act, for the purposes of entertaining the Appeal and making a pre-deposit, the Appellant can always utilize the electronic credit ledgers to comply with the said condition – The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs. Tenormac Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Provisions under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023, are applicable to arrests made under the CGST Act, 2017 | The arresting authority under GST shall comply with all the mandates provided under the CGST Act, 2017, the BNSS, 2023, and the guidelines issued by the CBIC – Union of India Vs. Shri Shashi Kumar Choudhary and Anr. – Gauhati High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

Provisions under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023, are applicable to arrests made under the CGST Act, 2017 | The arresting authority under GST shall comply with all the mandates provided under the CGST Act, 2017, the BNSS, 2023, and the guidelines issued by the CBIC – Union of India Vs. Shri Shashi Kumar Choudhary and Anr. – Gauhati High Court Read Post »

Sending GST notice by uploading in GST portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act – Tvl. Nissha Engg Contractorrs Vs. The State Tax Officer – Madras High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

Sending GST notice by uploading in GST portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act – Tvl. Nissha Engg Contractorrs Vs. The State Tax Officer – Madras High Court Read Post »

Whether the service of notice by uploading on the GST portal alone is sufficient under Section 169 of the GST Act, or if other modes of service should have been explored when there was no response from the Assessee – Hitech Building Solutions Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-2 and Anr. – Madras High Court

Password Email OTP Google Username or E-mail Password Remember Me   Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP? Remember Me   Forgot Password Don’t have an account? Create a new account Extra Search & Filters [Section, Sub-section, Rules wise GST Case Laws] + AI Summary Case Summary: Get Access to Case Summary

Whether the service of notice by uploading on the GST portal alone is sufficient under Section 169 of the GST Act, or if other modes of service should have been explored when there was no response from the Assessee – Hitech Building Solutions Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-2 and Anr. – Madras High Court Read Post »

WhatsApp
Group-398
Scroll to Top