Stay updated
Section 6(2)(b) prohibits the initiation of parallel proceedings by State and Central authorities on the same subject matter.
Once a proceeding is initiated by State Tax Authority, the DGGI cannot initiate parallel proceedings on the same subject matter i.e. regarding the same supplier.
Synopsis: Under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, if rectification adversely affects any person, the affected party is required to be provided an opportunity of hearing.
Since the original order adversely affected the petitioner, thus, the third proviso to Section 161 came into picture, and the petitioner should have been given a hearing.
Procedural lapse in Part B of the E-way bill was minor and curable and goods were moved within the same company’s establishments, not for sale, thus penalty order were set aside.
Section 83(1) mandates that any provisional attachment order must contain reasons for the Commissioner’s decision to protect the government’s revenue and failure to provide such reasons renders the provisional attachment order invalid.
GST RC cancellation order was set aside as it lacked reasons and violated the principles of natural justice because the SCN did not propose the cancellation of GST registration ab initio i.e. from the date of registration.
The petitioner is not remediless and can seek refund in accordance with law when he was coerced to deposit an amount under protest.
The impugned order was set aside which confirmed demand on the ground that the petitioner had availed ITC from “cancelled dealers, return defaulters & tax non-payers” without any findings that suppliers from whom the petitioner had availed supplies had not discharged their tax liability
Reopening the case and issuing a new SCN for the same year without providing specific reasons or addressing the petitioner’s detailed reply is improper and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Cancellation of GST registration, alleging that assessee has issued invoices or bills without supplying goods or services by merely reproducing Rule 21(b) of the CGST Rules without providing specific details or evidence of the alleged non-compliance is unjustified. The lack of specific allegations in the SCN rendered it meaningless and deficient in meeting the requisite legal standards for a show cause notice, thus, the impugned order was set aside.
SCN lacked sufficient details to elicit a meaningful response from petitioner. Thus, petitioner’s GST registration was directed to the restored immediately.