Stay updated
Sharing a short presentation on the principle explained by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala. The decision offers a nuanced exposition of the Doctrine of Merger, Article 136 and Article 141. It lays down that
Businesses shifting their principal place of business to a new GST jurisdiction will not have to restart pending tax proceedings..
CBIC issued Notification no. 27/2024 – Central Tax dated 25.11.2024 to hereby makes the following amendments in the notification no. 02/2017-Central Tax, dated the 19th June, 2017 which provides for jurisdiction of Central Tax Officers.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Mansoori Enterprises held that according to Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST dated February 09, 2018, power of the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise is limited to the matter not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/- and in the present case the amount involved is more than Rs. 16,00,000/- and consequently, the order passed by the Superintendent is without jurisdiction. Hence, the said order was declared without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Saket Agarwal v. Union of India held that, the State Tax Officer does not have any jurisdiction to issue notice/communication under Section 83 of the MGST Act.