Tag: Andhra Pradesh HC

ArticleGST Article

Section 75(12) Can Be Invoked Only for Admitted Self-Assessed Return Liabilities

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Sona Enterprises held that recovery under Section 75(12) read with Section 79 of the CGST Act is permissible only where the registered person has clearly disclosed a tax liability in returns filed under Section 39 and such admitted liability remains unpaid, and that the said recovery mechanism cannot be invoked where the Revenue alleges wrong usage of input tax credit, which must be addressed only through adjudication under Sections 73 or 74.

ArticleGST Article

GST assessment against deceased registrant invalid, rather Fresh assessment required involving legal representative

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Baratam Satish v. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 6029 of 2025, order dated December 24, 2025] held that assessments and other proceedings can only be initiated against persons who are living and that proceedings against a deceased person would not be valid, and that where Section 93 of the CGST Act enables recovery of dues of a deceased person

ArticleGST Article

GST registration amendment/cancellation proceedings must recognize legal consequence of CIRP and treat new management as distinct entity

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of R K I Builders Private Limited v. The Superintendent of Central Taxes [WRIT PETITION NO: 32994/2025, order dated December 17, 2025] held that rejection of amendment application for GST registration (FORM GST REG-05) and suo motu cancellation of registration (FORM GST REG-19) ordered against the Petitioner are unsustainable where the Petitioner underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), pursuant to which a new management was installed by NCLT orders and registration was restored.

ArticleGST Article

2-year limitation period under Section 54 of the CGST Act not applicable to cases of refund of tax paid by mistake

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nspira Management Services Private Limited held that the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 does not apply to refund applications for tax paid by mistake on exempt services, as such payment is not “due tax” but one made without authority of law by virtue of Article 265 of the Constitution.​

ArticleGST Article

No attachment of bank account after statutory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand under Section 107 of the GST Act

byCA Bimal Jain

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Wingtech Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. held that the recovery and attachment of bank accounts after payment of the statutory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed GST demand under Section 107 of the CGST Act, is impermissible, and directed the Respondents to refund the excess amount recovered, subject to safeguards protecting revenue interests.