RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS
HCL Infotech v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Another, WRIT TAX No. – 1396 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court)
Show Cause Notice under Section 74 of CGST Act,2017 cannot be issued again by the Proper Officer on a similar issue which is already dropped through order under Section 73 of CGST Act,2017. The scope of Section 73 and 74 of the CGST Act are different. To initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, the adjudicating authority must expressly mention in the Show Cause Notice that he is prima-facie satisfied that the person has wrongly availed or utilized ITC due to some fraud or a wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts to evade tax. If the aforesaid basic ingredient of the Show Cause Notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act,2017 is missing, the proceedings becomes without jurisdiction.
M/S Genius Security Service v State Of Uttar Pradesh, WRIT TAX No. – 1330 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court)
Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition after taking into consideration the Judgment of M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) & Another [Writ Tax No. 1394 of 2023], wherein it was held that “The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, one cannot apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the aforesaid provision.”
Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal v Union of India, B.A. No.7209 of 2024 (Jharkhand High Court)
Petitioner was arrested based on the statement of witness/ complaint that petitioner has created the fake firms and availed and utilized the ITC to the tune of Rs.54.33 crore, no documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution in support of the allegations made in the complaint and prosecution report as well against the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 25.06.2024 and the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable for five years. Therefore, taking into consideration that the trial of this case would not likely to be concluded in near future and also the fact that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of tampering the evidence or any flight risk of the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court granted bail to the petitioner.
Pankaj Aggarwal v Union of India, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8451/2024 (Rajasthan High Court)
Bail was granted
The bail was granted to the petitioner by the Hon’ble High Court as Department was not able to submit before the Court that how many persons/ firms are the actual beneficiaries of input tax credit and how much amount each on the basis of fake invoices alleged to have been issued by the accused petitioner in the name of fake firms. Unless offence could be ascertained, the allegation against the petitioner that because of his acts there is evasion of Rs.215.67 Crore, cannot be accepted.
M/s A.M. Enterprises v State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., CWP No.1517 of 2024 (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Cancellation of GST Registration on pretext of violation of Rule 86B is disproportionate punishment. “Prima facie” investigation cannot be the basis of an order of cancellation of GST Registration without the investigation being completed. For violation of Rule 86B the Proper Officer could have considered any other penalty which is more proportionate to the violation of law.
M/S. Vermax Technologie Services Limited v The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, WRIT PETITION NO.15810 OF 2024 (T-RES) (Karnataka High Court)
Consolidated show cause notice under section 73/74 of CGST Act,2017 for multiple financial years cannot be issued by the revenue authorities as each assessment year has different due dates of limitation under GST Act.
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY CBIC
Notification No. 17/2024–Central Tax dated September 27, 2024
Notifies the commencement dates for various provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. The provisions of sections 118, 142, 148, and 150 will take effect from the date of the notification’s publication in the Official Gazette. And, sections 114 to 117, 119 to 141, 143 to 147, 149, and 151 to 157 will come into force on 1st November 2024.
Consolidated show cause notice under section 73 of CGST Act,2017 for multiple financial years cannot be issued by the revenue authorities as each assessment year has different due dates of limitation under GST Act. The Honourable High Court relied upon the decision given by Honourable Madras High Court in the case of M/s Titan Company Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of GST which was based on decision of Honourable Supreme court in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others vs. Caltex (India) Ltd. wherein it was held that an assessment encompasses different assessment year, each assessment order must be distinctly separated and must be treated independently.
Deepak Singhal Vs Union of India and Others, W.P. No. 21641 of 2024 (Madras High Court)
GST Authorities cannot bypass the GST Act’s provisions by invoking IPC provisions without following the procedural requirements under the GST Act, especially when the alleged actions fell squarely under the offenses enumerated in the GST Act.
Search and Seizure operations conducted under Section 67(2) of the GST Act revealed offenses punishable under Section 132 of the GST Act. Given that the GST Act is a special statute, the invocation of IPC provisions without first applying the penal provisions of the GST Act is legally flawed. It was contended that the FIR registered by the GST Authorities under IPC provisions was invalid without invoking the appropriate sections of the GST Act.
No prior sanction was obtained from the Commissioner as mandated under Section 132(6) of the GST Act before initiating prosecution. The absence of such approval rendered the FIR defective. The GST authorities were required to follow the procedure prescribed by the GST Act and invoke its penal provisions before resorting to the IPC.
Vishal Steel Supplier vs State Of U.P., Writ Tax No. 741/2020 (Allahabad High Court)
The Honourable High Court quashed the order of detention of goods, which were intercepted by authorities on the grounds that the transportation route deviated from the usual path. The court found that no provision under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law mandates the disclosure of the specific route for transportation, and the detention was based on mere speculation. The Allahabad High Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, quashing the orders from the tax authorities and directed the refund of any deposited amount
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY CBIC Notification No. 17/2024–Central Tax dated September 27, 2024 Notifies the commencement dates for various provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. The provisions of sections 118, 142, 148, and 150 will take effect from the date of the notification’s publication in the Official Gazette. And, sections 114 to 117, 119 to 141, 143 to 147, 149, and 151 to 157 will come into force on 1st November 2024.
Notification No. 18/2024–Central Tax dated October 1st, 2024 Anti-profiteering matters shall be examined by the Principal Bench of the Appellate Tribunal, constituted under sub-section (3) of section 109 of the said Act, the bench shall examine whether input tax credits availed by any registered person or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by that registered person. Notification No. 19/2024–Central Tax dated October 1st, 2024 Anti-profiteering complaints from 1st day of April 2025 shall not be accepted by Authority under Section 171 of CGST Act for examination as to whether input tax credits availed by any registered person or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by that registered person. |
GST PORTAL – NEWS & UPDATES:
GSTN e-Services App to Replace e-Invoice QR Code Verifier App
GSTN has launched new GSTN e-Services app, which will replace the old e-Invoice QR Code Verifier App. This app offers the following features:
- Verify e-Invoices: Scan the QR code to verify the B2B e-Invoices QR code and check the live status of the Invoice Reference Number (IRN).
- GSTIN Search: Search for GSTIN details using the GSTIN or PAN.
- Return Filing History: View the return filing history for a GSTIN.
- Multiple Input Methods: Input search details using text, voice, or scan functions.
- Result Sharing: Share search results via the app.
The app would soon be available on the Google Play Store and App Store. No login is required to use the app. Taxpayers and stake holders can use this mobile application to verify the E-Invoices and GSTIN Status, Return status of Vendors. A detailed manual would also be released by GSTN.
Advisory on issuance of Notices/Orders without digital signatures of the Issuing Authorities
The GSTN has issued advisory pertaining to doubts which has been created regarding the validity of documents issued by the tax officers on the common portal viz. Show cause Notices, Order of Assessment, Refund Orders etc. which does not contain the Digital signatures on the pdf. document downloaded from the common portal. In this context, it is to be mentioned that such documents (i.e. SCN/Orders) are generated on the common portal from the login of the officer, who logs in through Digital Signatures. Further, these documents being computer generated on the command of the officer, may not require physical signatures of the officer as these documents can be issued by the officer only after logging into the common portal using Digital Signature. Thus, all these documents in JSON format containing the order details along with the issuing officer details are stored in the GST system with the digital signature of the issuing officer.
Archival of GST Data on GST Portal
Section 39 (11) of the CGST Act, 2017, implemented w.e.f 01-10-2023 vide Notification No. 28/2023 – Central Tax dated 31th July, 2023, provides that the taxpayers shall not be allowed file their GST returns after the expiry of a period of three years from the due date of furnishing the said return.
As per GST portal data policy, data for view of taxpayer to be retained for seven years only. The data policy shall be implemented on the GST portal. Thus, return data will not be available to view beyond 7 years for taxpayers. Data archival process will be implemented after a prior notice from GSTN on a monthly basis for period starting July, 2017. Taxpayers are advised to download their relevant data from the GST portal for any future reference, if required
ISSUANCE OF NOTICES / ORDERS WITHOUT DIGITAL SIGNATURES OF THE PROPER OFFICER IS VALID UNDER THE LAW ?
The GSTN on 26th October 2024 had issued advisory pertaining to issuance of notices/orders without digital signatures of the issuing authorities. The pertinent question that rises is that if such advisory is implemented will the notices / orders without digital signatures of the proper officer will be valid under the law ?
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of SRK Enterprises V Assistant Commissioner (ST), (2023) 13 Centax 60 (A.P.), held:
- On consideration of the submissions advanced and the legal provisions, we are of the view that Section 160 of CGST Act 2017 is not attracted. An unsigned ordercannot be covered under “any mistake, defect or omission therein” as used in Section 160. The said expression refers to any mistake, defect or omission in an order with respect to assessment, re-assessment; adjudication etc and which shall not be invalid or deemed to be invalid by such reason, if in substance and effect the assessment, re-assessment etc is in conformity with the requirements of the Act or any existing law. These would not cover omission to sign the order. Unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law. Merely uploading of the unsigned order, may be by the Authority competent to pass the order, would, in our view, not cure the defect which goes to the very root of the matter i.e. validity of the order.
Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Mancherial Cement Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (2024) 17 Centax 480 (Telangana), placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble High Courts in the case of SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (2023) 13 Centax 60 (A.P), Ramani Suchit Malushte v. Union of India (2022) (9) TMI 1263-Bombay High Court, Railsys Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of CGST (Appeals-II) 2022 (65) GSTL 159 (Del) and another judgment of Telangana High Court in M/s. Silver Oak Villas LLP v. The Assistant Commissioner W.P.No.6671 of 2024 decided on 14-3-2024, that the singular point involved is no more res integra. Since the order is not pregnant with the signature of the competent authority, the order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Other side did not dispute the factum of non-availability of signature on the notice and order.
The Proper Officers should refrain from executing such advisory issued by GSTN as the question of “validity of the unsigned notice /order” shall be raised by taxpayers before the courts in the light of the above two judgements pertaining to “validity of the unsigned notice /order”.
LEGAL MAXIMS/ PHRASES
|
DUE DATES:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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