Stay updated
Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) in M/s. Umicore Autocat India Pvt Ltd ruled in favour of the petitioner allowing the transfer of untilised input tax credit of a Transferor company in one state to Transferee in another state.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of B Braun Medical India (P.) Ltd. set aside the order wherein a demand order was passed on the Assessee was claiming excess ITC, where invoices were raid by the supplier for purchase of products inadvertently a different address and GSTN.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of FSM Education Pvt Ltd held that no adjudication orders were to be passed where a pre-consultation notice is issued to an Assessee and Assessee had responded to same. Nevertheless, a subsequent SCN was issued to Assessee, while department could adjudicate said SCN.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Sri Nanjudappa Constructions dismissed the writ petition was to be dismissed as premature since tax intimation issued to Assessee under Section 73(5) of the CGST Act was not a final demand, and Assessee had an opportunity to contest it before any further proceedings.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court of Madurai Bench in the case of M/s Modern India Products allowed refund claim by the assessee of the IGST refund for exports that would qualify as zero -rated supply. While Circular No. 37/2018-Customs dated October 09, 2018 (“the Circular”) relied upon by Standing Counsel to state that if duty drawback is claimed, refund of IGST amount cannot be sought. The Court relied on the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court case wherein it was held that the Circular cannot prevail over Rule 96 of the CGST Rules.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Annai Angammal Arakkattalai (Pre Mahal) dismissed the petition filed by the Assessee wherein the entire claim against the Assessee was arisen of its failure to register itself under GST and only pursuant thereto, the Assessee remitted tax. On perusal of the orders indicate that there was deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax by not registering and issuing receipts as donation to trust and only after inspection Assessee agreed to pay tax. The orders did not call for any interference and therefore, instant petition was to be dismissed.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Raiden Infotech India (P.) Ltd. restored the Refund Application where the deficiency memo in Form GST RFD-03 was not issued to the Assessee, and the order rejecting the refund application was to be set aside. However, since the Assessee failed to avail the opportunity granted to raise contentions in response to the SCN, the Assessee had to pay the cost.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kirpal Singh, dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration, held that no provision under the CGST Act prohibits the Assessee from applying for fresh registration and the Circular No. 95/14/2019-GST dated March 28, 2019 (“the Circular”) was binding on the Assessee. Hence, granted liberty to the Assessee to seek new registration under the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Sursarita Vanijya (P.) Ltd. disposed of the writ petition challenging the GST demand issued in Form GST DRC-07 on the ground that ITC had been availed in contravention of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, directing the assessee to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and held that various issues had been pointed out regarding merit as also violation of principle of natural justice.
The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sri Srinivasa Lorry Transport set aside the assessment and penalty orders on the ground that an opportunity of personal hearing must be granted before an adverse decision is taken, even if not explicitly requested and held that prior authorization is not required for assessment under Section 63 of the CGST Act. It was also clarified that Section 75(5) of the CGST Act does not mandate a minimum of three adjournments before an order is passed.