GST DAILY – 301
Discount received from supplier can’t be construed as service provided to supplier: HC
Tag: Madras HC
Bonafide intent must be proved when property is purchased from GST defaulters
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case S. Geetha held that a Bonafide purchaser of property bought without knowledge of tax arrears can challenge an order under section 81. However, the bonafide nature must be proved.
Rule 86A Conundrum: Interpretation Battles in High Courts
The recent judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Tvl. Skanthaguru Innovations Private Limited has sparked a new debate as to whether the revenue department can make the balance of ECL negative by exercising the power of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules.
Order released without giving notice is contrary to the principles of natural justice
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case Tvl. Spark Bio Gas (P.) Ltd held that an order released without giving proper notice is contrary to principles of natural justice.
Order released without giving opportunity to reply is contrary to the principles of natural justice
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case Sundarapandian held that an order released without giving proper opportunity to reply to the Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) is contrary to principles of natural justice.
Whether an Order passed on the date of personal hearing is valid?
No, the Honorable Madras High Court in the case of M/s. SS Traders vs. Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence) [Writ Petition No. 15363 of 2021 dated August 16, 2024] set aside the order and remanded back to pass a fresh order. The Honorable Court noted that the petitioner is mulct with huge tax liability vide Assessment Order and on the date of hearing, 105 pages’ order was passed which was technically impossible.
Negative blocking is within the scope of provisions of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tvl. Shanthaguru Innovations Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 29872 of 2024 dated November 28, 2024] dismissed the case and held that the negative blocking is well within the scope of provisions of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (“the CGST Rules”).
No Order can be passed beyond the defects mentioned in the SCN
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case Tvl. Senthil Hardwares v. State Tax Officer, Pattukottai [W.P. (MD) No. 17626/2024 dated July 30, 2024] the order where a Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) was issued to the Assessee vide FORM DRC-01 and reply filed by the Assessee was accepted by the Department, but certain part of demand was confirmed vide the Order in respect of defect, which was not part of notice.
Date of rectification order relevant date for calculating limitation period for filing of appeal
The Hon’ble Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in the case of M/s. SPK and Co disposed the writ petition thereby holding that the date of limitation for filing of appeal would start from the date of passing of rectification order.
Refund rejection order not proper when required information for defending the claim made is not provided to the Appellant
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case Tvl. Orange Sorting Machines (India) (P.) Ltd. quashed the impugned order as the Department failed to provide a breakup of the amount demanded, thereby holding that the refund rejection order is not proper when required information for defending the claim made is not provided to the Applicant.