GST Authorities Can't Deny Refund Of Pre-Deposit On Grounds Of Limitation, Violates Article 265: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held in a recent judgement that rejecting a refund claim for a statutory pre-deposit which has been made under Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, on the ground that the claim was filed after the 2-year limitation under Section 54(1), is legally unsustainable. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated, “There...

Contractors Are Liable To Pay GST At Rate Prevalent On Day Of Receipt Of Tender, Not When Work Is Allotted: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the contractors were liable to pay GST at a rate prevalent on the last day for the submission of the tenders and not when the work was allocated as the same was clear from the Special Condition No.49 existing in the contract agreement. The petitioners had filed the review on the ground that as per section 13 of the CGST Act the liability to...

Burden Of Court Increasing Over Violations Of Natural Justice: Allahabad HC Imposes 20K Cost On GST Official For Not Following Mandatory Provision

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on Joint Commissioner SGST, Corporate Circle-1, Ghaziabad who had issued a show cause notice without specifying the date and time for personal hearing and had passed an order under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 creating a demand of more than Rs. 5 crore ignoring the specific request for personal hearing made by...

Income Tax Commissioners Must Not Routinely Remand Matters Just Because Assessing Officer Could Not Find Additions: Supreme Court

If the Assessing Officer could not find additions to income, then it can be taken that the assessee's stand was correct.

Transitional Credit Under GST Not Allowable For Capital Goods Received After 1 July 2017: Patna HC Upholds Recovery Of Ineligible CENVAT Credit

The Patna High Court, while upholding the recovery of ₹8,62,566 as ineligible CENVAT credit, held that transitional credit under the GST regime cannot be availed for capital goods received after 1st July 2017. The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya held, “The distinction in the matter of giving benefit of CENVAT credit on...

Penalty U/S 271(1)(c) Of Income Tax Act Not Applicable If Assessee Voluntary Discloses Bona Fide Mistake: Chhattisgarh High Court

In a recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act not applicable if assessee voluntary discloses bona fide mistake. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and...

Kerala Municipality Act | Building Owners Liable To Pay Revised Property Tax For Past Three Years After Adjusting Previously Paid Amount: HC

The Kerala High Court stated that building owners liable to pay revised property tax for past three years, after adjusting previously paid amounts. The Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was addressing the issue of whether, despite the creation of charge on the property enabling the Municipality to recover the arrears of tax as arrears of public revenue, the limitation period...

Delay Of 17 Months In Filing Appeal Not Condonable U/S 107 Of CGST Act: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Cancellation Of Registration

The Jharkhand High Court has held that an appeal filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not maintainable and the delay cannot be condoned beyond the limits expressly stated in the statute. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan held, “Even...

State Rules Can't Be Inconsistent With Central Rules Under CST Act : Supreme Court Rejects Rajasthan's Appeal

The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision striking down Rule 17(20) of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 (Rajasthan CST Rules) as ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, noting that the State Government cannot exceed its delegated powers by authorizing cancellation of Form C, which the Central Rules do not permit. The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka...

Courts & SROs Must Report To Income Tax Authorities If Suits/Deeds Mention Cash Transactions Above ₹2 Lakh: Supreme Court

In a significant ruling aimed at combating black money and tax evasion, the Supreme Court today (April 16) directed courts and registration authorities to report cash transactions exceeding ₹2 lakhs to the Income Tax Department. The Court ruled that whenever any suit is filed claiming that a consideration of Rs. 2 Lacs or above is paid towards a transaction, then it becomes obligatory upon...

Customs Officer Is A Stranger To Contract Of Sale, Cannot Re-Determine FOB Value: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no stranger to the contract of sale, including the Customs officer, has any right to re-determine the FOB or transactional value of goods. The Free on Board or (FOB )is one of the INCOTERMS – which are the terms used in international commerce. The INCOTERMS make the costs, risks...

[S. 93 GST Act] No Provision Empowering Authorities To Make Tax Determination Against Dead Assesee: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not empower the authorities to make determination of tax against a dead person and recover the same his legal representatives. Section 93 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for liability to pay tax in case of death of the proprietor of the firm. Section 93(1)(a) provides that when...