LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 04.04.2025
|
🔥📛 Order to be quashed as proceedings were time-barred under Section 73: HC ➡️ The case involves a demand for tax or ITC not involving fraud for the period 2017-18. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee, and proceedings under Section 73 were initiated. A final order was passed on 15-12-2023. ➡️ The assessee argued that the proceedings were time-barred. They cited a previous decision by a co-ordinate bench in A.V. Pharma v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. 264 of 2024] (Allahabad) to support their claim. ➡️ Under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, the proper officer must issue a show cause notice at least three months prior to the time limit for issuing an order. The order must be issued within three years from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or ITC wrongly availed or utilized relates to. For the financial year 2017-18, the extended deadline for issuing the order under Section 73(10) was 31st December 2023. ➡️ The court found that the facts mentioned in the impugned order and records were undisputed. Since the proceedings culminating in the impugned order were time-barred, the impugned orders and proceedings were quashed. ✔️ Allahabad HC – S K Metal Industries Lko. v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. – 123 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 No relief to assessee for failure to disclose all business locations while seeking GST registration: HC ➡️ The assessee’s business premises in Kanpur was not declared during the GST registration process. Despite the fact that the assessee claimed the premises was mentioned in the partnership deed filed at the time of registration, it was still not included in the declared place of business. ➡️ A show cause notice was issued to the assessee regarding the undeclared premises. The assessee replied arguing that it was the duty of the registering authority to include all premises mentioned in the partnership deed in the GST registration. ➡️ An order was passed under section 74. The assessee submitted that the partnership deed filed during registration mentioned all four premises as business premises, so the registering authority should have included them. ➡️ The court held that the assessee’s plea was baseless. The registering authority was not expected to register premises other than those specifically sought for registration just because they were mentioned in the partnership deed. It is the assessee’s responsibility to fairly disclose all business sites. ➡️ Considering that the business was conducted at the fourth site for over six years without the assessee attempting to get it included for GST, the court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition. ✔️ Allahabad HC – Manoj Metal, Industries v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. – 822 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 Delay of 210 days in filing appeal condoned as SCN & order uploaded only on GST portal and not served through other means: HC ➡️ A show cause notice was issued for the period 2018-19, proposing a tax demand as the assessee wrongly claimed Input Tax Credit through GSTR-3B returns, leading to short payment of tax. The notice was only uploaded in the GST Portal without any physical intimation to the assessee. ➡️ The assessment order was also uploaded in the “view additional notices column” of the GST Portal. ➡️ The assessee filed an appeal against the order, which was rejected on the ground of delay of nearly 210 days. ➡️ However, it was held that the reason for the delay in filing the appeal appeared to be genuine. ➡️ The assessee had already paid 10% of the statutory pre-deposit for filing the appeal. Due to the huge delay, the assessee was directed to pay an additional 15% of the disputed tax, and the delay of 210 days in filing the appeal was condoned. ✔️ Madras HC – Akshaya Meditech v. Deputy Commissioner (CT) [W.P. No. 8051 of 2025] |
|
🔥📛 Order to be set aside as no pre-decisional hearing was provided before blocking electronic credit ledger: HC ➡️ The electronic credit ledger of the assessee was blocked under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules. ➡️ The assessee argued that no pre-decisional hearing was provided before the blocking order was issued. ➡️ The assessee also pointed out that the blocking order did not contain any independent or cogent reasons to justify the necessity of blocking the ledger. ➡️ The order only mentioned that the assessee had fraudulently availed input tax credit by receiving tax invoices without physically receiving the goods. ➡️ The court held that since no pre-decisional hearing was provided and the order lacked sufficient reasons, the blocking order was to be set aside. ✔️ Karnataka HC – A.M. Enterprises v. State of Karnataka [WRIT PETITION NO. 36304 OF 2024 (T-RES)] |
