Stay updated
Synopsis: Since the GST portal for filing Form ITC-02 was non-functional in 2017, faulting the Petitioner for not filing it electronically was unjustified. Hence, impugned order was set aside, emphasizing that procedural lapses caused by administrative failures should not be…
The SCN and GST cancellation order lacked proper reasoning and showed non-application of mind, therefore, were aside.
Central Authorities do not have jurisdiction to issue summons, when State Authorities had already investigated the transactions by putting reliance on the prohibition against parallel proceedings u/s 6(2) of CGST Act.
Synopsis: Non-compliance with appellate orders could lead to administrative chaos and erode public confidence in the appeal system.
The SCN lacked specific details or evidence to support the allegations of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of fact and the extremely short time given to respond violated the petitioner’s right to natural justice. Thus, the authorities were directed to restore GST registration.
Synopsis: The Supreme Court held that if construction of a building is essential for supplying services such as renting out, it could fall into the “plant” i.e. exception to section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act. Functionality test will have to be applied to decide whether building is a plant.
The SCNs were not placed in a way that would attract the petitioner’s attention and thus, the impugned order set aside.
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.