GST Laws

ACT & RULES

GST Act, Rules

CBIC GST Update Weekly Update
  1. GST Weekly Update dated 08.01.2022 – Read more
  2. GST Weekly Update dated 04.12.2021 – Read more
NOTIFICATION : ANNUAL RETURN

Sr. No.Notification NoAmendmentDownload
3 31/2021-Central Tax dated 30.07.2021 The registered person whose aggregate turnover in the financial year 2020-21 is upto two crore rupees are hereby exempted from filing of annual return for the said financial year. This notification is effect from 01.08.2021.Click here
230/2021-Central Tax dated 30.07.2021Rule 80 of CGST Rules, 2017 is substituted to provide that every registered person except some person shall furnish an annual return for every financial year in FORM GSTR-9 on or before 31st of December following the end of the financial year through common portal either directly or through a Facilitation Center notified by the Commissioner. Accordingly some amendments is brought in the said Rule in respect of FORM GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C. This notification is effect from 01.08.2021. Click here
129/2021-Cental Tax dated 30.07.2021The effective date of Sec 110 and 111 of Finance Act, 2021 (13 of 2021) is notified as 01.08.2021 where Sec 110 omits the Sec 35(5) of CGST Act, 2017 and Sec.111 substitutes Sec 44 of CGST Act, 2017 both relates to GST Annual Return.Click here
CIRCULARS
Sr. No.Circular No.DateSubjectDownload
9CT/7533/2021-C1 Circular No.6/202107.11.2021Proper officer functions – scrutiny, assessment, detention, seizure, release and refund– reg. KSGST Act, 2017 Click here
8CT/7533/2021-C1 Circular No.7/2021 07.11.2021Instructions/ Guidelines regarding procedure to be followed in scrutiny of returns and thenceforth actions. KSGST Act, 2017Click here
7162/18/2021-GST25.09.2021Clarification in respect of refund of tax specified in section 77(1) of the CGST Act and section 19(1) of the IGST Act.Click here
6161/17/2021-GST20.09.2021Clarification relating to export of services-condition (v) of section 2(6) of the IGST Act 2017Click here
5160/16/2021-GST20.09.2021Clarification in respect of certain GST related issues CorrigendumClick here
4159/15/2021-GST20.09.2021Clarification on doubts related to scope of “Intermediary”Click here
3158/14/2021-GST06.09.2021Clarification regarding extension of time limit to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration in view of Notification No. 34/2021-Central Tax dated 29.08.2021 – Reg.Click here
2157/13/2021-GST20.07.2021Clarification regarding extension of limitation under GST Law in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 27.04.2021Click here
2.1212203125.08.2021 Clarification regarding extension of limitation under GST Law in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 27.04.2021 – by UP, Com. TaxClick here
116/2021-Customs19.07.2021Clarification regarding applicability of IGST on repair cost, insurance and freight, on goods re-imported after being exported for repairs, on the recommendations of the GST Council made in its 43rd meeting – reg.Click here
PRESS RELEASE
Please log in to access this section
ADVANCE RULING – AAR

M/s. Yashaswi Academy for Skills, the Applicant  has sought a clarification on the issue as to whether the reimbursement by the companies to the Appellant of the stipend paid to students attract Goods and Services Tax . The Hon’ble Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling noted that the stipend is not directly paid to the trainees by the companies but are routed through the Applicant. That the applicant only acts as an intermediary since the applicant is not allowed to make any deductions from the stipend before providing it to the trainees. Therefore, the amount received by the applicant in the form of reimbursement does not attract any GST. Source : GST-ARA-83/2019-20/B-47 dated August 20, 2021.


AAR, Karnataka vide its ruling no. KAR ADRG 49/2021 dated 30.07.2021 has clarified that – 1(a)(i) supply of sealed fruit bowl containing only cut fresh fruits without addition of any preservatives or additives which are sold under brand name is covered under entry no. 59 of Schedule I of Notification No.1/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 vide HSN 1106 and is liable to tax @2.5% under CGST and 2.5% under the SGST Act, 2017. (ii) the fruit bowl containing both cut fresh fruits and dry fruits and nuts is taxable at rate applicable to the supply of dry fruits and nuts. (b) … 2. The applicant is eligible for input tax credit on the tax paid on the inward supplies of inputs and input services involved in the supply which is taxable. Read more


AAR, Karnataka vide its ruling no. KAR ADRG 44/2021 dated 30.07.2021 has clarified that the contract entered between the applicant M/s. Goodwill Auto and the recipient is for the hiring of the DG Set and recipient was paying for the services of DG Set and not for the diesel. Therefore the cost of diesel is a part of value of supply as per section 15 of CGST Act and accordingly 18% GST is applicable.


AAAR, Kerala vide its ruling no. KER/123/2021 dated 31.05.2021 clarified that the question asked for clarification by the applicant Shri Kottoor Mathew Jose Mathew, M/s. Jose Matthew and Co. are not dealt with under section 97(2) of CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the authority cannot issue any ruling on the issues not covered under the said provision and also in absence of necessary information. The question sought for clarification are:

  • Whether there is any tax liability on acc0unt of discount received through credit notes.
  • Consequences of treating credit notes after showing GSTax on commercial credit notes
  • Whether there is any error in taking the value mentioned in the invoice without discount
  • Steps to be taken if there has been such an error
  • Provision in GST laws in case of any mismatch in the value of tax payment made in GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A.

AAR, Andhra Pradesh vide its ruling no. AAR No. 14/AP/GST/2021 dated 20.03.2021 to the application filed by M/s Vijayavahini Charitable Foundation, clarified to the query, “whether the supply of drinking water to general public in unpacked /unsealed manner through dispensers/ mobile tankers by a charitable organisation at a concessional rate is covered under exemption of GST as per serial no. 99 of Notification No. 02/2017-CTR dated 28.06.2017.” as , “the said supply is not covered under exemption as explained supra and taxable 18% vide Notification No. 1/2017-CTR dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time. Read Order


M/s. Yashaswi Academy for Skills, the Applicant  has sought a clarification on the issue as to whether the reimbursement by the companies to the Appellant of the stipend paid to students attract Goods and Services Tax . The Hon’ble Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling noted that the stipend is not directly paid to the trainees by the companies but are routed through the Applicant. That the applicant only acts as an intermediary since the applicant is not allowed to make any deductions from the stipend before providing it to the trainees. Therefore, the amount received by the applicant in the form of reimbursement does not attract any GST. Sourec : GST-ARA-83/2019-20/B-47 dated August 20, 2021.

HIGH COURT CASES
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
03.08.2021 : M/s Deem Distributors Private Ltd v Union of India
[Revenue cannot collect tax from taxpayer without issuing SCN and when enquiry is still in progress]

The petitioner is alleged to have taken ITC on the invoices issued by suppliers who are fictitious and ITC are taken without actual receipt of material. The department demanded the tax from petitioner based on intelligence information obtained from the Assistant Commissioner, Balasore Division. However the investigation is still going on. The petitioner contented that the conduct of the respondent in directing it to remit the amount availed as input tax credit at the stage of summons itself without following the procedure under section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not correct. Hon’ble High Court ruled that , no tax demand can be issued or raised when investigation is still in progress. This action is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the respondent are restrained from coercing the petitioner to make any payment without issuing notice u/s 74(1) of the Act and following the procedure therein; and they are directed to refund Rs.35,00,000/- already paid by petitioner with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of payment till date of refund within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Read Order

02.06.2021 : Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors.
[No presumption can be drawn that there was an intention to evade tax on account of non-extension of the validity of the e-way bill by the Petitioner]

The Hon’ble Telangana High Court has set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department in Form GST MOV-09 by imposing tax and penalty on the taxpayer due to the expiry of the e-way bill and Deprecated the Revenue Authority for blatant abuse of power in detaining goods by treating validity of the expiry on the e-way bill as amounting to evasion of tax. Held that, no presumption can be drawn that there was an intention to evade tax on account of non-extension of the validity of the e-way bill by the Petitioner or the auto trolley driver. The High Court has held as under:

  • Noted that, Impugned Order was signed by the Senior Assistant of the Respondent, and not by the Respondent himself, by wrongly stating that the Petitioner had no objection to pay proposed tax and penalty in spite of the representations made by the Petitioner.
  • Stated that, it was the duty of the Respondent to consider the explanation offered by the Petitioner as to why the goods could not have been delivered during the validity of the e-way bill, and instead the Respondent is harping on the fact that the e-way bill is not extended even four hours before the expiry or four hours after the expiry, which is untenable.
  • Further stated that, there was no material before the Respondent to come to the conclusion that there was evasion of tax by the Petitioner merely on account of lapse of time mentioned in the e-way bill and this is plainly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
  • Opined that, there has been a blatant abuse of power by the Respondent in collecting the tax and penalty from the Petitioner and compelling the Petitioner to pay INR 69,000/- by such conduct.
  • Held that, no presumption can be drawn that there was an intention to evade tax on account of non-extension of the validity of the e-way bill by the Petitioner or the auto trolley driver. Further Deprecated the conduct of the respondent in not adverting to the representations by the Petitioner, and deliberate intention to treat the validity of the expiry on the e-way bill as amounting to evasion of tax without any evidence of such evasion of tax by the Petitioner.Set aside the Impugned Order.
  • Directed the Respondent to refund the amount collected from the Petitioner with interest @6% p.a. and imposed fine of INR 10,000/- payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner within 4 weeks.
PATNA HIGH COURT
21.10.2021 : M/s K.R. Steel Traders v. The State of Bihar

The petitioner M/s K.R. Steel Traders aggrieved against Order dated August 16, 2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna South Circle and Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated August 29, 2019 passed by Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Patna South, Jurisdiction- Patna South, Patna in which the appeal of the Petitioner has been rejected merely on the grounds of being barred by limitation and both the orders were ex parte in nature. The Hon’ble Patna High Court quashed the orders on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. The Court further directed de-freezing/de-attaching of the bank accounts of the Petitioner, if attached in reference to the proceedings subject matter of present petition. Further, the Petitioner undertakes to additionally deposit 10% of the amount of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer this shall be done within four weeks.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

in the matter of SBI Cards & Payment Services Limited v. Union of India and others, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has ordered on 08.08.2021 that the Authority should refund GST worth Rs. 108 crores paid under the wrong head along with applicable interest as the money was lain with the Authority for the past two and a half years.

During the initial stage of the GST regime the complete break up of individual transactions was not available to the Petitioner and in the absence thereof for the period April 2018 to December 2018 the Petitioner paid CGST and SGST of about Rs. 108 crores approximately considering the transactions to be intra-state sales. It later transpired that those transactions for which the amount of Rs. 108 crores approximately had been paid as on the basis of them intra-state sales were actually inter-state transactions. It was in those circumstances that the Petitioner applied for refund of the amount wrongly paid on the basis that these transactions were intra-state transactions. At that stage the Department required it to first make the payment under the right head Integrated Goods and Services Tax (“IGST”) and then the prayer for refund would be considered. The Petitioner hence deposited another amount of Rs. 108 cores approximately as tax which was due on the inter-state transactions. Even then its plea for refund was rejected.

SUPREME COURT CASES

www.liiofindia.org/in/cases/cen/INSC/ – All supreme court judgments from 1950 to 2021 are available on one touch at

28.10.2021 : BHARTI AIRTEL LTD & ORS

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has correctly held that ITC is to be taken on the basis of office record and books of accounts required to be statutorily preserved. It is not that the benefit of ITC is being denied. They can claim the ITC in the month in which the error is noticed. Read more

close

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top