Stay updated
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
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.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nirdosh Kumar Sadh granted interim protection from possible coercive action on the part of the Department in the matter wherein it has been alleged that the third person has misused the GST number and login credentials without the knowledge of the Assessee.
GST Assessment order was set aside as the CGST Act’s assessment time limit was extended for F.Y. 2018-19, but no similar extension was made under the DGST Act.
No, the Honorable Delhi High Court in Spinclabs (P.) Ltd. held that the adjudicating authority could have asked the assessee to furnish any further details that were required, rather, merely holding that replies furnished are unsatisfactory and not supported with proper calculations/ reconciliation, which ex-facie shows that the adjudicating authority has not applied his mind and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-adjudication.
Cancellation of GST registration is not contingent upon tax liability.
Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is not properly replied/filed without any justification which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Shree Padma Industries remitted back the matter and it was held that that the one opportunity of being heard should be granted to the Assessee.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Svera Agro Ltd. quashed the deficiency memo requiring the assessee to furnish CA certificate for seeking refund of unutilized ITC, since proviso to Rule 89(2)(m) waive the requirements of furnishing CA certificate in case refund is sought for unutilized ITC.