RATIO OF THE LATEST JUDGEMENT
Rahul Steels Vs Union Of India & Others, Writ Petition No. 8015 of 2024 (M. P. High Court)
Information was received by the Revenue that few entities were engaged in availing of ineligible ITC to certain units without actual supply of goods by way of circular trading. On search, certain incriminating documents were found, and it was also found that transactions were on paper without any underlying supply of actual goods with an intention to increase the turnover to get higher loans from the banks and to avail fake input tax credit. Therefore, Notices under Section 74 and 122 were issued, the quashing of these Notices was denied by Hon’ble High Court. Dismissing the Writ, it was observed that the search revealed that as many as 5 firms were involved in circular trading with a common object to inflate their turnover, and to avail higher loans as well as to avail fake ITC. Therefore, a joint assessment was to be conducted for all six companies.
Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Commissioner, Cgst Appeals-1, W.P.(C) 13211/2024 (Delhi High Court)
The issue pertains to the characterization of telecommunication towers as immovable property and consequent availment of ITC under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act. The Hon’ble High Court after taking into consideration the submissions of both sides have observed that Mobile towers could be dismantled and moved, their placement on concrete bases was only to enable those towers to overcome the vagaries of nature. Therefore, telecommunication towers would be a moveable property. Further, it was observed that the specific exclusion of telecommunication towers from the scope of the phrase “plant and machinery” would not lead one to conclude that the telecommunication towers to be immovable property.
The Hon’ble High Court have placed its reliance over the decisions of Vodafone Mobile Services as well as Bharti Airtel, wherein telecommunication towers were treated to be as movable property. Consequently, it was held that the denial of input tax credit, would not sustain and the writ was allowed.
Bum Bum Corporation Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others, Writ Petition No. 33962 of 2024 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The sole issue for consideration was unblocking of Electronic Credit ledger to make the pre-deposit of 20% for appealing before GST Appellate tribunal. The Hon’ble High Court while citing Circular dated 11.07.2024 issued by CBIC, given directions to the Respondents that the Electronic Credit Ledger of the Petitioner shall be unblocked to enable petitioner to make pre- deposit of the pre-deposit amount.
Hcc Vccl Joint Venture Vs Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 10940/2023 (Delhi High Court)
In present case, the Revenue under the garb of Section 108 have placed in abeyance an order of refund of a sum of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- due to the allegation of improper utilization of ITC. The Hon’ble High Court have observed that the pre-requisite condition for invocation of Section 108 is the formation of an opinion that an order made under the CGST Act is erroneous, prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, illegal or improper. The allegation of improper utilization of ITC was clearly distinct and unconnected with the order sanctioning refund and it has no correlation with the question of whether the order sanctioning refund was rendered invalid or was liable to be corrected under Section 108. Therefore, the Revenue have transgressed the provisions of Section 108 by putting refund on hold. Consequently, writ petition was allowed
PayU Payments Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India, WRIT PETITION NO. 4605 OF 2024 (Bombay High Court)
The Petitioner was issued a show cause notice by DGGI, which was challenged before Hon’ble High Court. The Court after taking into consideration the submissions from both sides, have observed that the impugned SCN have not violated any principles of natural justice as well as fundamental rights. It was decided that till the show cause notice was totally non est in the eyes of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority and to investigate the acts, the writ petition should not be entertained, for mere asking or as a matter of routine.
Bar Code India Ltd Vs Union of India & others, CWP No. 25343 of 2023 (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
In present case, the issue pertains to rectification of GSTR-1 after the limitation has been expired in terms of Section 37(3). The Hon’ble High Court have held that the process is complete, and each step precedes the earlier step. If one of the steps is erroneous and the same is not corrected or rectified within the timeline provided under the provisions, a cascading effect would occur to the subsequent process provided under the subsequent provisions.
Further, it was held that if there is a correction in the corresponding GSTR-1 within the timeline, ITC would be permissible in terms of the timeline specified in Section 64 of the Act, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to rectify the return beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the GST Act. It was further observed that even if the petitioner is allowed to rectify the return now, there will not be an automatic benefit of input tax credit, which the purchaser can claim. Had the petitioner detected its error prior to filing of annual return, it could have simply rectified the same in the GSTR-1 for that month as the common portal allows rectification of such error till the filing of the annual return.
The law is settled that a person who is engaged in business must be well versed with the provisions of law including the time frame provided under the said provisions. Both the companies, in present facts of the case, were engaged in business since long and if they have committed an error, the law cannot be changed for giving them any such benefit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Dish TV India Ltd Vs State of AP, (2024) 25 Centax 243 (A.P.) (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The sole issue was that whether the assessment order in Form DRC-07 would stand valid in absence of DIN Number. The Hon’ble High Court while putting its reliance over circular dated 23.12.2019 bearing No.128/47/2019-GST issued by the C.B.I.C & Judgment of Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (S.C.) have set aside the impugned Order and consequently the writ petition was allowed.
Dheeraj Saini Vs Union of India, (2024) 25 Centax 201 (All.) (Allahabad High Court)
DGGI received an information that a racket is indulged in creation of fake firms and issuance of bogus bills and invoices without any supply of goods and services. Therefore, a search operation was conducted in the premises of mastermind. During search incriminating records were found which clearly indicated that he was managing and controlling issuance of bogus invoices without supply of concomitant goods. Evidence collected during investigation revealed that the applicant, was working with the said Deepak Kumar (the mastermind). But nothing was recovered from the possession & the applicant has no criminal history as well.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the applicant has no criminal history and the mastermind having more serious role has been released on bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.
Nishad KU Vs The Joint Commissioner, WP(C) NO. 26732 OF 2024 (Kerala High Court)
In present facts of the case, penalty was proposed for alleged wilful misstatements and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of GST on basis of the statements of 20 different persons, indicating that the petitioner had indulged in fake registrations for the purpose of getting ITC. The Petitioner sought cross-examination for all 20 persons which were denied by the Revenue and final order was passed.
The Hon’ble High Court while allowing the Writ Petition held that the basic requirement of the rule of law is to grant an opportunity of hearing to the person against whom proceedings have been initiated. Unilateral statements behind the back of a person cannot under any circumstances be justified under the rule of law as it against the principles of natural justice.
CHANGES TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM 01.01.2025 a) Updated versions of the E-Way Bill and E-Invoice Systems would be effective. These updates are aimed at enhancing the security of the portals, in line with best practices and government guidelines. b) Multi-Factor Authentication will become mandatory for taxpayers with Annual Aggregate Turnover exceeding Rs 20 Crores. c) The generation of E-Way Bills will be restricted to documents dated within 180 days from the date of generation. For instance, documents dated earlier than 5th July 2024 will not be eligible for E-Way Bill generation starting 1st January 2025. d) It may be noted that tentatively from January 2025 tax period, the GST Portal is going to restrict making changes in auto-populated liability in pre-filled GSTR-3B from GSTR-1/1A/IFF to further enhance accuracy in return filing. Any change required in auto-populated liability be handled through GSTR-1A. e) Form GST SPL-01 and Form GST SPL-02 (under Section 128A) are under development and same will be made available on the common portal tentatively from the first week of January 2025. In the meantime, taxpayers are advised to pay the tax amount demanded in the notice, statement, or order issued under Section 73 on or before March 31st, 2025, to ensure that they receive the waiver benefits by paying their taxes before the deadline. f) E-Waybill has been integrated with Railways for goods sent through Parcel and FOIS system. Hence, it is mandatory to specify the category of goods sent. |
The taxpayer must note that from 1st January 2025 onwards, the GST Portal is going to restrict making changes in auto-populated liability in pre-filled GSTR-3B from GSTR-1/1A/IFF to further enhance accuracy in return filing. Therefore, it is suggested that in case any change is required in auto-populated liability, the same may please be handled through GSTR-1A. No further opportunity would be provided to edit any information to the taxpayers so caution must be taken while filing the Returns.
LEGAL MAXIMS
|
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 |
Annual Return GSTR-9 for FY 2023-24: 31st Dec 2024 GSTR-9C for FY 2023-24: 31st Dec, 2024 | |||
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.