GSTAT-No Appeal due to monetary limits by Department-But what about a Cross-Objection?
Once a cross-objection is treated as an appeal, the restrictions applicable to appeals should logically apply to it as well.
Category: GST Article
Gist of GST Articles
Can GST be levied on charges for sanctioning a Building Plan?
Karnataka High Court has delivered an important ruling on the legality of various charges demanded by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for sanctioning a building plan.
Article 136, Article 141, and the Doctrine of Merger: A Question of Jurisdiction
Sharing a short presentation on the principle explained by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala. The decision offers a nuanced exposition of the Doctrine of Merger, Article 136 and Article 141. It lays down that
Penalty Cannot Be Confirmed Beyond What is Specified in Statutory Form GST DRC-01
The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Comfort Battery vs Additional Commissioner Central Goods and…
Education Consultancy Services to Foreign Universities Not Intermediary Services; Refund of IGST on Export of Services Allowed
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors [W.P.(C)…
Non-Supply of Field Visit Report Vitiates Rejection of Revocation Application
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Scorp Industries & Anr. held that where cancellation of GST registration was founded upon a field visit report, such report ought to have been supplied to the taxpayer before rejection of the application for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST/WBGST Act.
Alternative Remedy before GSTAT to be Exhausted Despite Allegation that Adjudication Travelled Beyond SCN
The Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of RSH Amit Realty Development LLP &Anr. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors. [WPA 29673 of 2025 order dated April 27, 2026] held that where the assessee had already availed the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act and a further statutory remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal (“GSTAT”) remained available
Two Commas, One Limitation Period: An Interesting Interpretative Question under Section 113(3) of the CGST Act
Section 113(3) of CGST Act, 2017 contains provision for rectification of order by the GSTAT . There are two commas placed in the provision.
Incremental GST burden on pre-GST works contracts is recoverable only from the contracting employer and not from the State or tax authorities
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka & Ors. partly allowed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka and held that reimbursement of incremental GST paid by contractors pursuant to transition from the KVAT regime to the GST regime can be claimed only against the concerned employer under the works contract and not against the State Government or the tax authorities.
Time Spent in Pursuing Rectification Application under Section 161 of the CGST Act Excludible While Computing Limitation for Filing Appeal under Section 107
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Debabrata Bhowmick set aside the Order-in-Appeal whereby the appeal filed under Section 107 of the CGST Act was rejected as time-barred and held that the period spent in bona fide prosecuting a rectification application