Revolutionary Raja for Taxation & Economic Reform

Home
India
Delhi
Revolutionary Raja for Taxation & Economic Reform

Writer & Author of 12 books. Columnist, Economist, Radio & TV Debate panelist!! Founder of www.GSTp
(3)

03/01/2024

"How to Handle First Appeal in GST" - Part-2

You might be seeing this post for the first time, Please follow me for valuable updates and bookmark this tweet.

"Aggrieved Person"

Any person "aggrieved" against any "decision" or "order" passed by the "adjudicating authority".
Let's dive deep and understand this word.

Where petitioner filed an appeal against the order confirming demand for tax and penalty, but authorities refused to take the appeal on record stating that payment was made by owner of goods, it was held that petitioner was entitled
to file an appeal as the petitioner was an aggrieved person. Bombay High Court in Stanship Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) [Writ Petition No. 6744 of 2021; 11-Sep-2023]
For purpose of preferring an appeal under section 107, assessee being consignor of goods, could be considered as person aggrieved when order was passed against person in charge of conveyance. Calcutta High Court in Som Global Pan Masala Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of
Revenue, Bureau of Investigation [W.P.A. No. 328 of 2023; 13-Jul-2023]
The Petitioner, being a consignee, can be considered as the person aggrieved when order is passed against person in charge of conveyance for purpose of preferring an appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017. Calcutta High Court in Mehndihasan Rahemtulla Hariyani vs
Deputy Commissioner of Investigation (North Bengal) [W.P.A. No. 927 of 2022; 03-Nov-2023]
Issue related to Third Party:
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Intervener in appeal - Aggrieved person - Intervener in appeal not permitted under CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and Central Excise Law
Aggrieved person U/s 86 of Finance Act,1994 would be person who has been saddled with liability under impugned order - Applicant cannot be treated as aggrieved party merely on the ground that assessee raised a demand on them relating to demand of tax arising out of impugned order
CESTAT - Chennai in Karaikal Port Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry [Misc. Order No. 41839/2014, dated 22-Jul-2014 in Application No. ST/Misc./42263/2013 in Appeal No. ST/41794/2013]
When is a third party considered to be the person aggrieved?

Appeal before the Delhi VAT Tribunal U/s 76 of DVAT Act can be filed by a person affected by the order of the Commissioner U/s 84 (i.e. Determination of Question) in the case of third party. Let’s illustrate:
The Commissioner determines the matter U/s 84 in the case of M/s ABC; the appeal can also be filed by M/s XYZ if he is aggrieved from the said Commissioner’s order. By going through provisions of Sec 74(1) and 84(8),
the DVAT Tribunal held that determination orders are binding not only on the applicant but also to other dealers and the subordinate officers, thus, are right in rem. Thus, the third party can also be considered as person aggrieved.
Therefore, the only remedy available to other dealers is to file appeal before the Tribunal, who have the locus standi to challenge the determination order before the Tribunal.
C.L. Micromed vs. CIT, 2015 (1487/ATVAT/2012-13 dated 18.02.2015) Tri.-Delhi
[This third party appeal Delhi VAT Tribunal Order was part of my book "Litigations, Pleading and Proceedings in GST! (Jan'2019)]

I hope that you would have liked today's discussion.
Tomorrow we will discuss in deep other important topic.

02/01/2024

As you are aware, by 31-Dec-2023, Demand Orders (DRC-07) have been passed for FY: 2017-18. It's time to review the Orders and, if not satisfied, file an appeal.

Starting today, "How to Handle First Appeal in GST" will share my views along with my experience

Please bookmark this

This first post is like the short summary and foundation for upcoming discussions.

First Appeal: Section 107

Any person "aggrieved" against any "decision" or "order" passed by the "adjudicating authority".

Dept. also have right to appeal but we will not discuss from their side

Time Limit: Appeal has to be filed within 3 months from the date of communication of decision or Order.

Form: Appeal has to be filed in GST APL-01 form.

Pre-Deposit: 100% of amount (tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty) accepted
AND
10% of Tax in Dispute (subject to maximum Rs. 50 Crores)

Stay: After payment of 10% of disputed tax, remaining 90% of tax in dispute is automatically stayed. Interest and Penalty is stayed 100%.

Adjournment: Maximum 3 adjournment -> each party -> reasonable cause

Additional Ground, Remand of Case: will discuss in upcoming post.

This is just starting of the series will go deep in this topic.

01/01/2024

Decision To Cancel GST Registration With Retrospective Effect Must Be Based On Some Objective Criteria: Delhi High Court

The petitioner/assessee was carrying on the business under the name of sole proprietorship concern 'M/s P. S. Metal', but she closed down her business activities on November 11, 2019, on account of ill health.

Therefore, the petitioner filed an application on the date for the cancellation of her GST registration. It was duly acknowledged, but the petitioner's application for cancellation of the registration was not processed.

The proper officer issued a show cause notice proposing to cancel the petitioner's GST registration on the ground that the petitioner had not filed the returns for a continuous period of six months.

The petitioner was called upon to furnish a reply to the SCN within a period of seven working days from the date of service of the SCN.

The petitioner was called upon to appear for a personal hearing on the appointed date and time, failing which she was cautioned that the case would be decided ex parte.

The SCN did not specify the appointed date and time fixed for hearing the petitioner. Thereafter, the proper officer passed the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration.

The order does not specify any reason for cancelling the petitioner's GST registration; however, it mentions that no reply was received from the SCN. The order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect from July 1, 2017.

The assessee contended that the order was not sustainable as it was not informed by reason. The order has also been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to be heard.

Although the SCN called upon the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing, it did not specify the date, time, or venue of the personal hearing. Thus, there was no possibility for the petitioner to appear at the hearing.

The court directed that the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration would take effect on November 11, 2019, and not on July 1, 2017.

Title: Pratima Tyagi vs Commissioner Of GST
Court: Delhi High Court
Citation: W.P. (C) 16016/2023
Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:9025-DB
Dated: 13-Dec-2023

31/12/2023

My dear Facebook Family

Can you suggest my goal for 2024.

I’m middle aged Tax Professional, happy in personal life, unable to frame goals for new year.

Thanks in Advance🙏🏻

30/12/2023

The Income Tax Department cannot make additions if Jewellery found during the search is less than disclosed in Wealth Tax Return. Delhi High Court

• Assessment Year: 2018-19.
• Background: Search and seizure operation against the Minda Group in 2017.

• Key Findings:

1. Jewellery: The Tribunal observed that the jewellery declared by the family in its wealth tax return was more than what was found during the search. It noted the family's consistent wealth declaration and lack of discrepancy in the jewellery's reconciliation statement.

Therefore, the Tribunal ruled out any addition concerning the jewellery.

Paintings: Differing valuations were presented for the paintings, with the respondent's valuer estimating a lower value than the two valuers appointed by the revenue.

The Tribunal acknowledged the inherent subjectivity in art valuation and found no merit in the addition made for the paintings.

Wrist Watches: Considering the family's declared income and substantial withdrawals, the Tribunal deleted the additions made on account of investment in wrist watches.

The court upheld the Tribunal’s observations and conclusions, finding no fault in its approach or the facts considered. The court deemed the Tribunal’s findings as factually sound and not perverse.

Consequently, the court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and closed the appeal.

Title: Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-2 vs Nirmal Kumar Minda
Court: Delhi High Court
Citation: IT Appeal N0. 616/2023
Dated: 08-Nov-2023

27/12/2023

Delhi HC held that GST Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect on the ground that the petitioner was not carrying on business from his declared principal place of business when the Appellate Authority accepted that the petitioner had shifted to a new premises.

Notwithstanding the same, the Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner’s appeal on the ground that the petitioner could not substantiate that he was continuing to function from the earlier place of business.

The Officer shall visit the petitioner’s current premises to verify whether the petitioner is occupying the same.
In the event the petitioner is found occupying and operating from the said premises, the petitioner’s GST registration shall be restored immediately thereafter.

Title: Roxy Enterprises vs Union of India
Court: Delhi High Court
Citation: W.P.(C) 13754/2023
Dated: 18-Dec-2023
Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:9107-DB

26/12/2023

When Extended Period of Limitation can be invoked by the Department?

The deadline to issue Notices U/s 73 is 30-Sep-2023, for the fiscal year 2017-18, and 31-Dec-2023, for the fiscal year 2018-19.

Beyond this period, the department can subject you for notices but U/s 74.

Sec. 74 can only be invoked in cases of willful suppression with the intention to evade tax.

Let's decode this with the help of case laws:

The GST Laws explanation of Sec .74 defines "suppression" as the act of failing to disclose certain facts or information that

a taxable person is required to report in any return, statement, report, or other documents in accordance with the Act or its rules.

It also includes the failure to provide information when requested in writing by the proper officer.

• Suppression Defined: Non-declaration of required facts or information by a taxable person.

• Applicable Documents: This includes returns, statements, reports, or other documents mandated by the Act or its rules.

• Failure to Furnish Information: This includes not providing information when requested in writing by the proper officer.

As GST is new law and Notices U/s 74 with time limitations would be tested first time, lets take help of case laws from IDT regime.

Extended period not invocable for suppression of facts where Department undertaking frequent and regular auditing of Assesse's accounts. Bombay High Court in Commissioner Central Excise, Pune-I vs Thyssenkrupp Industries India Ltd. [2019 (20) G.S.T.L. J46, 16-10-2018]

Assessee filed ST-3 returns showing correct calculations of Service Tax. The differential tax payable also apparent from figures furnished. No suppression of any information with intention to evade Service Tax. Extended period not invokable. CESTAT Ahmedabad in Central Warehousing Corporation vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2016 (41) STR 106]

Where no mala fide attributable to assessee as credit availed reflected in statutory records and monthly returns, it was held that longer period of limitation cannot be invoked. CESTAT Bangalore in GMR Industries Ltd vs CCE & ST Vishakhapatnam-I [2016 (41) STR 553]

Regards,
ARR

25/12/2023

GSTN introduced a new feature ‘Grievance Against Payment (GST PMT-07)’ on the GST Portal.

This Form PMT-07 is under Rule 87(8).

Q. When to use PMT-07?

1. If the amount of tax reflected in your ECL doesn't match the actual amount you paid.

2. If the bank hasn't sent the CIN to the GST portal within 24 hours of debiting your account.

3. If the CIN has been generated but you haven't received any confirmation about it.

How to file a PMT-07?
=> You can file a PMT-07 grievance through the GST online portal.

=> You'll need to provide details about the discrepancy, including the date of payment, the amount paid, and the expected CIN.

=>You can also attach supporting documents, such as bank statements or screenshots.

What happens after you file a PMT-07?

=>The GST authorities will investigate the discrepancy and try to resolve the issue.

=> You'll be notified about the outcome of your grievance via email or SMS.

Additional points to remember:

=> Filing a PMT-07 is free of charge.

=> You can track the status of your grievance through the GST portal.

=> It's important to file your grievance within a reasonable timeframe, ideally within 24 hours of noticing the discrepancy.

Scenarios: Common situations where PMT-07 might be used include:
=>Money debited from the taxpayer's account but no Challan Identification Number (CIN) generated.

=>CIN generated but not reflected in the electronic cash ledger (ECL).

=Discrepancy in the amount of tax paid compared to the entry in ECL.

=>Payment failure due to technical issues.

Remember, if you encounter any issues with your GST payments, you can always use the PMT-07 form to seek assistance from the authorities

Thanks for reading

25/12/2023

Friends,

Many Notices have been issued where IGST Credit was available but mistakenly CGST + SGST Credit was claimed and utilised and not Department has either issued Notice or confirmed demand.

Attempt to frame argument on the basis of Revenue Neutrality.

Please bookmark this

I know that Revenue has to be distributed between State and Centre and therefore, if amount is paid to other then it is a loss to State but the same State and Centre promoted GST as "One Nation One Tax" so it is One Tax whether paid to Centre or State...!! Is it or Not?

Revenue neutrality is a situation where a mistake in tax classification or payment does not result in a loss or gain of revenue for the government. In other words, the total amount of tax paid remains the same, even if it was allocated to different tax heads (IGST vs. CGST/SGST).

How to draft reply:

1. Clearly outline how the mistake occurred, emphasizing that it was an unintentional error in classifying the tax heads. There was no intention to evade tax.

2. The government did not lose any revenue due to this error. The total tax amount was paid, albeit under different tax heads. The essential point is that the total tax liability was fulfilled, and there was no shortfall in the amount remitted to the government.

3. Ask for consideration of the revenue neutrality principle in the resolution of this issue, particularly in terms of waiving or reducing any penalties or interest that may be applicable due to the error.

However, it's important to note that while revenue neutrality can be a persuasive argument, it may not always be a guaranteed solution.

This is because, as per Section 77 Tax Wrongfully paid shall be refunded after payment in correct head and no interest has to be charged.

As the law itself covers this specific situation, the Officer will always emphasis on following the procedure and claim refund once tax is paid in correct head. But the problem is there's a time limit of two years from the relevant date for filing the refund.

This limit of two years can be important in your case. Also, the Refund is not automatic and you need to follow the procedure mandated for the Refund.

There are few case laws in case of earlier IDT Regime which could be helpful in framing argument for Revenue Neutrality

but the basic question remain unanswered is that when the law covers a specific situation then can any counter argument would be valid or/and helpful?

Let's wait what lies in the future.

24/12/2023

Friends,
Please bookmark this Supreme Court judgment, which would help you in Litigation whenever amendments are needed.

The power to grant amendment to the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.
Since the name in which the action was instituted was merely a misdescription of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arises - the plaint must be deemed, on amendment, to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff, on the date on which it was originally
instituted, the order passed by the Trial Court in granting the amendment was clearly right. The proceedings will stand remanded to the High Court for disposal according to law on the merits of the dispute between the parties.
Title: Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs National Building Material Supply, Gugaon
Court: Supreme Court
Dated: 17-Mar-1969

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 697/1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 9-Nov-1964 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 257/1953.
Other Citations: 1969 (3) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT, 1969 AIR 1267, 1970 (1) SCR 22, 1969 (1) SCC 869
Facts:

On March 11, 1950, Manohar Lal s/o Jai Jai Ram, filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nanital, seeking a decree for Rs 10,130/12 for the value of timber supplied to the defendant, National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon.
The suit was filed in the name of "Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal", which was the name under which the business was conducted.

The defendant, in its written statement, contended that the plaintiff was an unregistered firm and, therefore, incompetent to sue.
Procedural History:

The Subordinate Judge granted leave to amend the plaint.
The defendant appealed to the High Court, which rejected the application for amendment, holding that the original plaint was not a case of misnomer or misdescription, but a case of a non-existent firm or a non-existent person suing.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court with special leave.

Issues:

• Whether a plaint filed in a court in India in the name of a firm doing business outside India is a nullity?
• Whether the trial court was right in granting the amendment?
• Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the suit on a technicality unrelated to the merits of the dispute?
• Whether the defendant should pay the costs in this Court and the High Court?
• Whether the High Court failed to deal with the appeal on the merits?
Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that a plaint filed in a court in India in the name of a firm doing business outside India is not a nullity.
The trial court was right in granting the amendment, and the High Court erred in dismissing the suit on a technicality unrelated to the merits of the dispute. The defendant should pay the costs in this Court and the High Court.
The High Court failed to deal with the appeal on the merits. The proceedings were remanded to the High Court for disposal according to law on the merits of the dispute between the parties.

I hope you will find this useful.

23/12/2023

Andhra Pradesh Medical representatives demand GST exemption on medicines, medical devices

The Andhra Pradesh Medical and Sales Representatives Union (APMRSU) and Federation of Medical Representatives Associations of India (FMRAI), staged a protest to demand the government reduce the prices of medicines and medical devices and exempt them from Goods and Services Tax (GST).

APMRSU State general secretary U.V. Krishnaiah said that the medical and sales representatives across the country were participating in the one-day strike.

The medical representatives’ associations have been tirelessly campaigning against the various changes taking place in the pharmaceutical sector over the past few years.

They have a charter of five demands. Their other demands include repealing the labour code and reviving of the Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act.

23/12/2023

Can GST Registration be cancelled in 2023 for a Notice issued in 2020?

If your answer is "NO" then either you are too innocent or have no exposure to GST Department..!!

02-Jul-2020: Notice issued for cancellation of Registration because of non-filling of 6 months return.

It was peak period of COVID but Assessee filed his returns. As due to COVID time limit to file GST Returns were extended so all returns were filed within the extended due dates and therefore, all returns within due dates.

25-Aug-2023: Department cancelled the GST Registration.

The petitioner approached for Revocation U/s 30 but after more than 1 (one) month no relief.

Petitioner approached requested again to the Officer but Officer issued notice for personal hearing for 10-Dec-2023. 10th December was Sunday but then also the Petitioner went to Department for personal hearing and found the office closed and locked.

Ideally, Revocation application should be disposed off within 1 (one) month, but not in this case.

Aggrieved with all this, the petitioner approached the High Court.

In the court Department Counsel said that the GST Registration is cancelled not because of non-filling of Return but because the petitioner has fraudulently availed the ITC to the tune of Rs. 31 Crores.

Now this fraud ITC was neither in the SCN nor in the Order.

High Court held:
On this very ground (pending 6 months return and the defect was rectified) alone, the impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set-aside/quashed.

Title: DNC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs The Superintendent
Court: Telangana High Court
Citation: Writ Petition No. 31974/2023
Dated: 11-Dec-2023

22/12/2023

When notices are issued alleging "Bogus Purchases" and disallowing ITC, inspite of matching with GSTR-2A/2B of the counterparty supplier, on the ground that either they are bogus or supplier is absconding, whereas we claim to have genuine and bonafide purchases then how to prove?

Please read till end:

As the matter is still under litigation in GST and various High Court judgments are not favourable then take help of these VAT Judgments.

Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd. - Supreme Court
ITC would be available to the Purchasing Dealer only if he discharge the burden to establish actual receipts of goods.

The Apex Court held that Purchase transaction was required to be proved beyond doubt by furnishing other details and documents:

1 Name and address of selling dealer
2 Details of vehicle which had delivered goods
3 Payment of freight charges
4 Acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods etc

Ecom Gill decision was on Sec. 70 of Karnataka VAT similar to Sec. 155 of GST Laws.

On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd and Arise India - Delhi High Court ITC cannot be denied to bonafide dealers who has entered into purchase transactions in accordance with Sec. 50 of DVAT and where there is no mismatch of transactions in Annexures 2A and 2B.

These judgments were on Sec. 9(2)(g) of DVAT and Annexures 2A and 2B here were to be filed in DVAT Laws were like GSTR-1 and GSTR-2 of GST Laws.

Delhi High Court further held that unless the expression "dealer or class of dealers" in Sec. 9(2)(g) is "read down" in the above manner, the entire provision would have to be held to be in violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
As per Sec. 155 of GST Laws (Burden of Proof), where any person claims that he is eligible for ITC, the burden of proving such claim shall lie on that person.

To discharge burden of proof you should have minimum following documents:
1. Tax Invoice
2. Proof of Payment (Payment should be through Banking channel)
3. E-Way Bill
4. Freight Payment
5. Toll Charges Payment (needed for all crossings during the way)

6. Weighment Slip/Dharam Kanta
7. Goods-In (into the factory or godown) documents
8. Stock Register
9. Any other documents to substantiate the claim.

This is not exhaustive list but an indicative list. You can add more documents.

GST case laws on which you can rely are:

1. Sanchita Kundu - Calcutta High Court
2. LGW Industries - Calcutta High Court
3. Gargo Traders - Calcutta High Court
4. D.Y. Beathel Enterprise - Madras High Court
5. Diva Agencies - Kerala High Court
6. Heena Medicals - Kerala High Court
7. Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. - Calcutta High Court
8. Mina Bazzar - Kerala High Court

I wish and hope you will find this write up useful.

Appeal to follow me for more valuable insight on Tax matters.

Thanks and Regards
Abhishek Raja Ram
9810638155

21/12/2023

Landmark Judgment of Gauhati High Court stayed operation of demand-cum-show cause notice issued by dept. without issuing Form GST ASMT-10.

The Petitioner challenged the demand-cum-Show cause notice for recovery of unreconciled ITC reflected in Form GSTR-9C.

The petitioner raised the question on validity of proceedings in the absence of issue of notice in FORM GST ASMT-10 (Rule 99).

Petitioner did not submit information in Table 14 in FORM GSTR-9C resulting in mismatch with the details furnished in FORM GSTR-9.

The petitioner said that such information for optional during that financial year (FY 2017-18).

Held:
Admittedly, in the instant case, Form GST ASMT-10 was not issued to the petitioner.

An act of issuance of impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice U/s 73(1) by proper officer was without compliance of mandatory conditions, more particularly, provisions of Section 61 read with Rule 99, to derive jurisdiction to issue such a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice U/s 73(1).

Prior to issuance of SCN U/s 73(1), it is mere discrepancy simplicitor but at the stage of issuance of Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice, there is formation of a prima facie opinion on the part of the Proper Officer that there is an act,

which is in violation of the statutory obligation cast on the notice.

Therefore, the act of issuance of the impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice by the Proper Officer was without compliance of the mandatory conditions precedent.

Therefore, the operation of the impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice was to be stayed.

Title: Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India
Court: Gauhati High Court
Citation: WP(C) No. 6960/2023
Dated: 13-Dec-2023

This judgment changes everything, and if this is followed, then most of the notices issued in September'2023 will become void.

20/12/2023

Limitation of Time - Condonation of Delay

GST, a Special Fiscal Statute, does not have link to the "Limitations Act'1963."

Therefore, any GST Officer (even the First Appellate Authority) cannot condone the delay, regardless of the circumstances

Relevant Case Laws: Pls bookmark

When the bank account of the assessee was freezed by authorities and only after obtaining a loan from a business associate, assessee could make necessary pre-deposit and file an appeal 25 days after the expiry of normal period of limitation, the delay being reasonable,

was to be condoned. Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.A. Iron and Metal vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (19-Jul-2023)

Where assessee's application for condonation of delay in filing revocation of registration by 8 days was rejected, the delay was due to delay in Aadhar verification,

assessee had no duty liability, the delay was to be condoned, and the impugned order was to be set aside. Madras High Court in Kakkaisamy Narayanasamy vs Joint Commissioner (18-Oct-2023)

The assessee wished to challenge the adjudicating order but was delayed in filing an appeal; looking at the fact that the assessee was a small-time trader, an appeal was allowed to be filed. Madras High Court in Nalla Mohammed Hameedabanu

vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeals, Chennai (12-Jul-2023)

Where petitioner had enclosed copy of impugned order as made available to it in GST portal while filing memo of appeal, non-submission of certified copy, was to be treated as mere technical defect; therefore, its submission should be allowed. Orissa High Court in Atlas PVC Pipes

vs State of Odisha (29-Jun-2022)

Where a firm headed by old woman who could not pursue matter during Covid and further, accountant of assessee was absent for a period of seven months, was to be condoned in filing appeal against adjudication. Andhra Pradesh High Court in

Bheemaneni Projects vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST-III) (04-Jul-2023)

I hope that you will find this write up useful in your

Thanks and Regards
Abhishek Raja Ram
9810638155

19/12/2023

Pre-Deposit for First Appeal U/s 107(6) can be made by using Electronic Credit Ledger (ECrL).

Sharing with you the judgments of various High Courts for your litigation, read till the end.

I request that you please bookmark this thread for future use.

Payment of the pre-deposit can be made by using the Electronic Credit Ledger. Orissa High Court in Kiran Motors vs Additional Commissioner of CT & GST (Appeal) [W.P. (C) No. 22817/2023, 10-Aug-2023]

Assessee should be permitted to debit amount that were lying unutilized in assessee's Electronic Credit Ledger towards pre-deposit. Madras High Court in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs The Joint Commissioner (ST), GST Appeals [WP No. 24577, 24579 and WMP No. 23999 of 2023, 21-Aug-2023]

The Patna High Court in Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Bihar (19-Sep-2023) held that Pre-Deposit cannot be paid from Electronic Credit Ledger (ECrL). Against this Flipkart Internet approached Supreme Court and the Apex Court stayed the operative para of Patna High Court

Thus Supreme Court stayed para 77 and 78 of Patna High Court but did not quash the judgement. In nut shell, Flipkart Internet Ltd. is allowed to pay pre-deposit from ECrL but judgment on merit is still awaited. [SLP Appeal No. 25437 of 2023; 04-Dec-2023]

Patna HC directed Appellate Authority to consider appeal even if pre-deposit was made from credit ledger pending the Supreme Court decision. This decision is in case of Friends Mobile vs State of Bihar (06-Dec-2023) and Supreme Court stay is in case of Flipkart Internet.

Appellate Authority should not insist assessee to make deposit through electronic cash ledger when payment of mandatory pre-deposit was made through an electronic credit ledger. Allahabad High Court in Tulsi Ram and Company vs Commissioner [Writ Tax No. 1237/2022; 23-Sep-2022]

Pre-Deposit (10%) of disputed tax can be paid either using amount available in Electronic Cash Ledger or Electronic Credit Ledger. Bombay High Court in Oasis Realty vs Union of India [Writ Petition ST Nos. 23507, 12457 of 2022; 16-Sep-2022]

Important Point to be noted is that recently GST Council in it's 52nd Meeting announced GST Appeal Amnesty where instead of 10% pre-deposit is 12.5% and 2.5% has to be mandatorily paid from Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL) and remaining 10% could be paid from Cash or Credit Ledger as

per choice of the Appellant (ECL or ECrL).

I hope you will find these cases useful.

Thanks
Abhishek Raja Ram

Address

Shakarpur
Delhi
110092

Telephone

+919810638155

Website

http://www.AbhishekRajaRam.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Revolutionary Raja for Taxation & Economic Reform posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Revolutionary Raja for Taxation & Economic Reform:

Videos

E Invoicing

GST Appellate Tribunal is finally a Reality...!!

GST Appellate Tribunal is finally a Reality...!! Notification No. F. No. A-50050/150/2018-CESTAT-DoR has been issued on 14-Sep-2023 by Ministry of Finance on the recommendation of the Goods and Services Tax Council, hereby constitutes the number of State Benches of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. Total 31 benches have been announced. 1 Andhra Pradesh 1 Vishakhapatnam and Vijayawada 2 Bihar 1 Patna 3 Chhattisgarh 1 Raipur and Bilaspur 4 Delhi 1 Delhi 5 Gujarat 2 Ahmedabad, Surat and Rajkot 6 Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu 7 Haryana 1 Gurugram and Hissar 8 Himachal Pradesh 1 Shimla 9 Jammu and Kashmir 1 Jammu and Srinagar 10 Ladakh 11 Jharkhand 1 Ranchi 12 Karnataka 2 Bengaluru 13 Kerala 1 Ernakulum and Trivandrum 14 Lakshadweep 15 Madhya Pradesh 1 Bhopal 16 Goa 3 Mumbai, Pune, Thane, Nagpur, Aurangabad 17 Maharashtra and Panaji 18 Odisha 1 Cuttack 19 Punjab 1 Chandigarh and Jalandhar 20 Chandigarh 21 Rajasthan 2 Jaipur and Jodhpur 22 Tamil Nadu 2 Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore and 23 Puducherry Puducherry 24 Telangana 1 Hyderabad 25 Uttar Pradesh 3 Lucknow, Varanasi, Ghaziabad, Agra and Prayagraj 26 Uttarakhand 1 Dehradun 27 Andaman and Nicobar Islands 2 Kolkata 28 Sikkim 29 West Bengal 30 Arunachal Pradesh 1 Guwahati Aizawl(Circuit ) Agartala(Circuit ) Kohima (Circuit ) 31 Assam 32 Manipur 33 Meghalaya 34 Mizoram 35 Nagaland 36 Tripura Lets see what all is there for you...

Burden of Proof For Claiming ITC || Abhishek Raja "Ram"

Burden of Proof For Claiming ITC

Discussion on GST 50th Council Meeting || Abhishek Raja "Ram"

In this discussion, we'll be discussing the GST 50th Council Meeting. We'll be discussing the highlights of the meeting and what came out of it. If you're interested in the latest news and updates related to the GST, then this is the discussion for you! We'll discuss the key points from the meeting and answer any questions you may have. Be sure to join us for this discussion and get all the information you need about the GST 50th Council Meeting! #GSTCouncilMeeting #GSTReforms #GSTUpdates #TaxReforms #Taxation #BusinessNews #GovernmentPolicies #gstcouncilmeeting #gstmeeting #gstcouncilmeeting

Mismatch of ITC as per Books and GSTR-2B is definitely going to create issues between Buyer and Supplier. Many Buyer are even suing their suppliers for non receipt of ITC under Commercial Recovery Dispute. Please be careful while filing your Returns. Note: Request you to please ignore the video. That is non-relevant to this post.

Can you amend GSTR-1? What is the view of Courts?

Many Assesses have found that they have committed errors while filing GSTR-1 with GSTIN of the recipient. Tax has been paid but credit to the other party is not passed. They have approached High Courts and we have seen contrary judgements from the High Courts. Now the question is can you amend your GSTR-1 to pass on credits? Yokohama India Private Limited vs State of Telangana - Telangana High Court Mahalaxmi Infra Contract Ltd vs State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand High Court Bharti Airtel vs Union of India - Supreme Court

Ms. Green was shocked to see her GSTR-2B, it was NIL Ms. Green then summoned her supplier Baby Blue who started laughing after seeing her NIL GSTR-2B Ms. Green got furious over her suppliers laughter and what happened next is ↘️ #fakenews #Sarcasm

Wishing Happy Dussehra to everyone. What are Ten Evils we need to destroy today as per you Mine are 1) Ego 2) Poverty 3) Unemployment 4) Fake News 5) Individualism & Selfishness 6) Greed 7) Decline in Moral Values 8) Crime against Women & Children 9) Drugs & Alcohol 10) Nepotism

Cost Imposed on Petitioner by Madhya Pradesh High Court

Cost Imposed on Petitioner by Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of M/s Dhara Enterprises vs Appellate Authority and Joint Commissioner [Writ No. 27676 of 2019, Judgement dated 12-May-2022] The #Writ filled by the Petitioner was dismissed as the Petitioner was found grossly misconceived.