Stay updated
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vasudeva Engineering held that provisions under Section 107 of the CGST Act are not condemnable to Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore, delay cannot be further condoned. However, High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has powers to condone delay in filing appeal.
Writ petition to be dismissed as misconceived with liberty to assessee to challenge order before Appellate Authority: HC
Synopsis: Non-compliance with appellate orders could lead to administrative chaos and erode public confidence in the appeal system.
Yes, the Honorable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vishal Chauhan granted bail to the Petitioner, where the Petitioner was arrested for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit by showing purchases from non-existent or fraudulent suppliers. The petitioner was granted regular bail as trial was likely to be prolonged; the Show Cause Notice under Section 74(1) was yet to be adjudicated and the exact liability of the Petitioner was yet to be fixed.
The Honorable Court noted that earlier this court had directed the respondents to conduct the proceedings at one place alone. Since the proceedings have already been initiated by the State Authorities, there is no occasion to uphold the action of the DGGI or the action of the state authorities to transfer proceedings to DGGI, Meerut pending before it.
The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vishal Chauhan granted bail to the Assessee, where the Assessee was arrested for wrongful availment of ITC by showing purchases from non-existent or fraudulent suppliers, was granted regular bail as trial was likely to be prolonged, the SCN under Section 74(1) was yet to be adjudicated, and Assessee had no prior criminal record, and there was no risk of flying away, as the Assessee was willing to surrender his passport.
Revisionary order passed for recovery of erroneous grant of refund was set as Supreme Court’s extension of limitation periods due to COVID-19 and GST Council’s recommendations applied to the petitioner’s refund claim.
Provisional attachment under Section 83 cannot be done without issuing proper notice under section 74 of CGST Act, 2017
The Hon’ble High Court concurred and held that the appeal, though filed by the Assistant Commissioner, was based on a review undertaken by the Commissioner who is the husband of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, there is a reasonable apprehension of bias in the petitioner’s mind.
Punjab and Haryana High Court stays CBIC Circular dated 27.10.2023, to the extent it clarifies that corporate guarantee (CG) provided by a company to a bank/ financial institutions providing credit facilities to the other company, where both companies are related, even when made without any consideration, is to be treated as a supply of service between related parties as per provisions of Schedule I of CGST Act, 2017.