RATIO OF THE LATEST JUDGEMENT
Tvl. Skanthaguru Innovations Private Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer & 3 others (W.P.No.29872 of 2024) (Madras High Court)
The Hon’ble High Court upheld the powers of State Authorities to block the Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86A of the GST Rules, confirming that they can block ITC to the extent of fraudulent credit availed, even if the credit was later accumulated at the time of passing the blocking order.
The Court interpreted the term “available” in Rule 86A as the ITC should be accessible in the Electronic Credit Ledger at any time for debiting to discharge output tax liabilities, rather than requiring the credit to be present at the time the blocking order is issued. Additionally, the Court clarified that while the Central Authorities had initiated proceedings regarding the wrongful availment of ITC, the State Authorities retain jurisdiction to block the Electronic Credit Ledger, as their powers in this regard are distinct and independent, and cross-empowerment did not apply.
M/S Tata Aldesa (J.V.) Versus State of UP (Writ Tax No. – 1172 Of 2024) (Allahabad High Court)
The Hon’ble High Court held that a taxpayer cannot be deprived of interest on a delayed refund due to the disputes between the State and Central GST authorities. The Court put an emphasis on regarding the internal dispute between the authorities must be resolved between them, and it should not affect the taxpayer’s right to interest. The petitioner sought the disbursement of the refund along with interest, as per Section 56 of the CGST Act, which mandates interest at 6% per annum if the refund is not made within 60 days of receiving the application.
Baba Minerals Vs Union of India (WP No. 14894/2024) (Rajasthan High Court)
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice (SCN) issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). The Court upheld that the DGGI, as a Central Tax Authority, has PAN India jurisdiction to issue SCNs based on intelligence-driven investigations, including uncovering fake Input Tax Credits (ITC) linked to fake invoices. The petitioner debated that the SCN was issued by the wrong authority, as their case was under State jurisdiction. However, the Court found this claim as premature, citing a 2018 circular empowering the DGGI to issue SCNs, and dismissed the petition.
Sunshine Exim Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence Jaipur Zonal Unit & 2 Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 16379/2024) (Rajasthan High Court)
The Hon’ble High Court has disposed of the Writ Petition as per the contention of the petitioner that the maximum period of attachment as provided under Section 83 has come to an end. The Court allowed the petitioner to operate its bank account as the period of one year was over.
Vertiv Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Writ Petition No. 17902 Of 2024) (Bombay High Court)
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on the petitioner challenging a show cause notice (SCN) for alleged GST evasion of Rs. 231.78 crores. The SCN accused the petitioner of wrongly availing ITC, distributing incorrect ISD credits, failing to pay suppliers within 180 days, and not reversing ITC with interest. It also mentioned short payment of tax and suppression of supply value in returns.
The petitioner argued that the SCN was based solely on a Central Excise Revenue Audit (CERA) conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), which they claimed had no jurisdiction over private companies. However, the Court clarified that the SCN was not based on a CAG audit of the petitioner, and there was no need to address the issue of the audit’s jurisdiction.
Barminco Indian Underground Mining Services LLP Vs Deputy Commissioner (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17391/2024) (Rajasthan High Court)
The Writ petition was filed mainly on the submission of GST is leviable on the import of services. The Hon’ble Court noted that it is not a case where the authority concerned lacks jurisdiction, and it is also not a case where mala fides have been alleged. Therefore, in the absence of there being a case of violation of principles of natural justice, the Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file reply to show cause notice.
Advisory on Difference in Value of Table 8A and 8C of Annual Returns FY 2023-24 Dated: 9th December 2024
|
This advisory highlights how to handle discrepancies between Table 8A (auto-populated from GSTR-2B) and Table 8C (manually filled), with clear guidance for reporting specific scenarios.
LEGAL MAXIMS/ PHRASES
Legal Maxim/ Phrase | Legal Principle/ Concept |
Jus scriptum | Written law. |
Jus | Law or right. |
Justitia nemini neganda est | Justice is to be denied to nobody
|
Lex non a rege est violanda | The law must not be violated even by the king
|
Locus standi
| Right of a party to an action to appear and be heard by the court. |
Lis pendens
| Suit pending
|
Lacunae
| Oh well, everyone as those!
|
Lex non cogit ad impossibilia | The law does not compel the impossible
|
Malum in se or Mala in se | Wrong or evil or Mala in se is ‘A term that signifies crime that is considered wrong in and of itself.’ |
SOP for organizing entertainment/ amusement events/ exhibition/mela etc. in NCT of Delhi and Registration of Casual Taxable Person (No. F.3(589)/GST/Policy/2024/2172-80) dated 05/12/2024 The Delhi Government’s Department of Trade & Taxes issued a notice requiring all event organizers and participants to register as Casual Taxable Persons (CTP) under the Delhi Goods and Services Tax (DGST) Act, 2017, unless already registered under GST in Delhi. Venue owners, including those of hotels, banquet halls, exhibition halls, stadiums, and other event spaces, must ensure that event organizers comply with this registration requirement. Failure to comply will result in penalties and recovery of dues. Key compliance requirements for event organizers and venue owners: 1. GST Registration: Event organizers and participants must obtain GST registration as Casual Taxable Persons (CTP) at least five days before the event as per the provision of Section 24 ,25 and 27 of the GST Act, 2017. They must also pay an advance tax based on the estimated tax liability for the event, as per the provisions of the DGST Act. Venue owners must ensure that organizers and participants fulfill these requirements. 2. Prior Intimation and NOC: Organizers must inform the Entertainment Branch (Ward-209) at least 15 days before the event and obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC). This includes providing detailed information about the event, including: · The organizer’s details, including those of any vendors and sub-vendors. · Information about event sponsors (e.g., media, beverage, radio sponsors). · Details of the venue and any permissions or approvals from other agencies. 3. Compliance During the Event: Organizers must ensure that all food, beverage, or liquor sales are invoiced with applicable GST/VAT charges. They must cooperate with government officers if compliance checks are conducted during the event. 4. Post-Event Compliance: Within 15 working days after the event, organizers must submit a detailed report on: · Vendors who were not disclosed when applying for the NOC. · Agreements with sponsors, including GST/VAT amounts. · Liquor sales details, inventory, and payment methods. · Method of receiving the payments along with name of the vendors who took care of such payments. · Total ticket sales, food sales, and GST/VAT payments. 5. Exempted Events: If an event is exempt from GST based on its nature or legal provisions, the organizer must still notify the Entertainment Branch and obtain a NOC. 6. Registration Process: The Central Registration Cell (CRC) or the jurisdictional Proper Officer will handle CTP registration and additions to business locations. The Entertainment Branch (Ward-209) will act as the nodal cell for implementing these processes.
7. Non-Compliance Consequences: If it is found that any organizer has violated legal provisions, the NOC will be immediately withdrawn, and penalties will be imposed according to the law. These guidelines are aimed at ensuring that event organizers and venue owners comply with GST regulations. Failure to adhere to the requirements will result in legal and financial consequences. |
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN DECEMBER 2024 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Nov, 2024) 20th Dec,2024 |
GSTR-3B (Oct-Dec, 2024) 22nd Jan, 2025, 24th Jan, 2025 |
GSTR-5 (Nov,2024) 13th Dec, 2024 |
GSTR-5A (Nov,2024) 20th Dec, 2024 |
GSTR-1 (Nov,2024) 11th Dec,2024 |
GSTR-1 (Oct-Dec, 2024) 13th Jan, 2025 |
GSTR-6 (Nov,2024) 13th Dec, 2024 |
GSTR-7 (Nov,2024) 10th Dec, 2024 |
IFF (Optional) (Nov 2024) 13th, Dec,2024 | CMP-08 (Oct-Dec,2024) 18th Jan, 2025 | GSTR-8 (Nov,2024) 10th Dec,2024 | RFD-10 2 years from the last day of the quarter in which supply was received |
Disclaimer: Pursuant to the Bar Council of India rules, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. You, the reader acknowledges that there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this newsletter. The information provided in this newsletter is solely available at your request and is for informational purposes only, it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advisement. We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the reader relying on material/ information provided in the newsletter. In cases where the reader has any legal issues, he/she must in all cases seek independent legal advice. Any information obtained or materials used from this newsletter is completely at the reader’s volition and any transmission, receiptor use of the contents of this newsletter would not create any lawyer-client relationship.