Research Results Based on the Query


ACT
SCJ
HCJ

Query: What are the top 10 compliances post GST registration?

Revised Query: What are the top 10 compliance requirements post GST registration?



Relevant Supreme Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024

Result 1
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India Through Its ... vs Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Honourable Judges A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, C.T. Ravikumar
Date of Judgment: 28 Oct 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 18
   
   
   

The High Court, however, did not enquire into the cardinal question as to whether the writ petitioner was required to be fully or wholly dependent on the auto generated information in the electronic common platform for discharging its obligation to pay OTL for the relevant period between July and September 2017. The answer is ­ an emphatic No. In that, the writ petitioner being a registered person, was under a legal obligation to maintain books of accounts and records as per the provisions of the 2017 Act and Chapter VII of the 2017 Rules regarding the transactions in respect of which the OTL would occur. Even in the past (till recently upto the 2017 Act came into force), during the pre­GST regime, the writ petitioner (being registered person/assessee) had been maintaining such books of accounts and records and submitting returns on its own. No such auto­populated electronic data was in vogue. It is the same pattern which had to be followed by the registered person in the post­GST regime. 33. As per the scheme of the 2017 Act, it is noticed that registered person is obliged to do self­assessment of ITC, reckon its eligibility to ITC and of OTL including the balance amount lying in cash or credit ledger primarily on the basis of his office record and books of accounts required to be statutorily preserved and updated from time to time. That he could do even without the common electronic portal as was being done in the past till recently pre­GST regime. As regards liability to pay OTL, that is on the basis of the transactions effected during the relevant period giving rise to taxable event. The supply of goods and services becomes taxable in respect of which the registered person is obliged to maintain agreement, invoices/challans and books of accounts, which can be maintained manually/electronically. The common portal is only a facilitator to feed or retrieve such information and need not be the primary source for doing self­ assessment. The primary source is in the form of agreements, invoices/challans, receipts of the goods and services and books of accounts which are maintained by the assessee manually/electronically. These are not within the control of the tax authorities. This was the arrangement even in the pre­GST regime whilst discharging the obligation under the concerned legislation(s). The position is no different in the post­GST regime, both in the matter of doing self­assessment and regarding dealing with eligibility to ITC and OTL. Indeed, that self­assessment and declarations would be any way subject to verification by the tax authorities. The role of tax authorities would come at the time of verification of the declarations and returns submitted/filed by the registered person. 34. Section 16 of the 2017 Act deals with eligibility of the registered person to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business.

Result 2
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India Through Its ... vs Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Honourable Judges A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, C.T. Ravikumar
Date of Judgment: 28 Oct 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

On the same day, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 61(5) of the stated Rules, the Central Government issued Notification No.21/2017­Central Tax specifying that the return for the months of July and August 2017 shall be furnished in Form GSTR­3B electronically through the common portal before the dates as specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the table given therein. To wit, the date for filing of Form GSTR­3B for the month of July 2017 was notified as 20.08.2017 and that for the month of August 2017 was notified as 20.09.2017. 6. The Under Secretary to the Government of India issued another Notification bearing No.23/2017­Central Tax dated 17.08.2017 to extend the time for filing Form GSTR­3B for the month of July 2017 for persons opting to file Form GST TRAN­1 on or before 20.08.2017 till 28.08.2017, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions like depositing of tax payable under the Act and payment of interest, if any. Respondent No.1 filed its return in Form GSTR­3B for the month of July 2017 on 31.08.2017. 7. The Commissioner (GST) issued another Circular No.7/7/2017­GST dated 01.09.2017 relating to system­based reconciliation of information furnished in Forms GSTR­1, GSTR­2 and GSTR­3B and the mechanism for correction of erroneous details furnished in Form GSTR­3B. 8. On the representations received from the business community, the Under Secretary to the Government of India issued Notification No.35/2017­Central Tax dated 15.09.2017 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 168 of the 2017 Act read with Rule 61(5) of the 2017 Rules and other enabling provisions, on the recommendations of the Goods and Services Tax Council5, specifying the dates for filing of return for the 5 for short, “the Council” concerned month as per the table given therein, in Form GSTR­3B electronically, through the common portal on or before the last date specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said table. The last date for the concerned English calendar month was specified as 20th day of the succeeding English calendar month for the period between August and December 2017. Respondent No.1 filed its return in Form GSTR­3B on 20.09.2017 for the month of August 2017 and on 16.10.2017 for the month of September 2017. 9. The Under Secretary to the Government once again issued Notification No.56/2017­Central Tax dated 15.11.2017, specifying the timeline for filing of return in Form GSTR­3B for the month of January, February and March 2018 as 20th February, 20th March and 20th April, 2018 respectively. 10. The Commissioner (GST) then issued the impugned Circular on the subject of filing of returns under GST, clarifying certain issues considered by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs6 to usher in uniformity in implementation across field formations.

Result 3
Supreme Court of India
Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi vs M/S. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors
Honourable Judges Swatanter Kumar, Surinder Singh Nijjar, K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, B. Sudershan Reddy, S. H. Kapadia
Date of Judgment: 18 Nov 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 10
   
   
   

On the other hand, if the requirements are procedural or directory in that they are not of the "essence" of the thing to be done but are given with a view to the orderly conduct of business, they may be fulfilled by substantial, if not strict compliance. In other words, a mere attempted compliance may not be sufficient, but actual compliance of those factors which are considered as essential. 25. The details to be furnished in Form No. 1 as per Rule 192 and the declaration to be made, relate to the "substance" and "essence" of Chapter X. R-2 Registration Certificate is also pre-requisite to obtain CT2 Certificate. Further, the execution of bonds as provided in that chapter is also not an empty formality for obtaining the duty free excisable goods. Bonds also insist for a declaration. CT-2 Certificate will be issued only if a party gets registered under Form R-2 from the Registering Authority. Only if CT-2 Certificate is obtained, the excisable goods could be removed. Form RG16 Register and the details to be furnished in Form RT11 are also statutory in nature, which relate to the "substance" and "essence" of the requirements under Chapter X. Indisputedly, those requirements had not been complied with. 26. The respondents have laid great emphasis on maintenance of some statutory registers and filing of periodical returns at the recipient unit, so as to take the shelter under the doctrine of substantial compliance for remission of duty. Respondents pointed out that they had identical columns in the registers kept at the recipient end, hence, the requirement of maintaining separate register at the supplier end and the requirements of Chapter X was substantially complied with. It may be noted that RG-16 Register prescribed was specific to Chapter X with the sole intention of maintaining separate accounts for receipt, issue and usage of duty free remitted inputs received from the supplier unit. Similarity of columns and the details furnished therein cannot be considered as substitute for not maintaining of RG-16 Register or other registers for remission of duty under Chapter X. 27. We have already indicated that, at the supplier end, no registration under Rule 174 was obtained and no records were kept. The applicants, at the recipient end, were also legally obliged to give various declarations in the statutory forms so as to claim exemption and such declarations admittedly were not made. Non-compliance of those conditions enumerated under various rules in Chapter X of the Excise Rules and non-furnishing of various statutory forms prescribed under Chapter X, in our view, are fatal to a plea of substantial compliance and intended use.

Result 4
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Cosmo Films Limited
Honourable Judges S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
Date of Judgment: 28 Apr 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

The legislative intent was clear in imposing IGST on all imports made under AAs, on or after 1.7.2017, without differentiating between the status of such authorisations, whether or not it was issued prior to or after Standard Input Output Norms, which are standard norms which define the number of input/inputs required to manufacture units of output for export purposes. They are applicable differently for different products. Supra, para 2. introduction of GST. It was a policy decision, which could have been reversed or altered only by the GST Council. The Revenue also pointed out that due to problems in Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN)10, the committed refund of IGST was getting delayed. This resulted in blocking of working capital for many business houses. To obviate this problem, the GST Council allowed exemption from IGST when imported under AAs. The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (“DGFT”) accordingly, issued Notification No. 33/2015-20 dated 13.10.2017 which was backed by Customs Notification No. 79/2017 dated 13.10.2017, issued by the Department of Revenue, amending the Notification No. 18 / 2015- Customs, dated 1.4.2015. The Revenue further urged that exemption from the IGST leviable under Section 3 (7) was available and subject to two specific conditions. The conditions were (i) export obligation was to be fulfilled through physical exports only; and (ii) the exemption was subject to ‘pre-import condition’, which implied that only after the import of the goods commenced, were they required to be used for manufacture of export goods, which were ultimately exported. 9. According to the Revenue, a cut-off date could have been declared, and only AAs issued after 13.10.2017 could have been declared eligible for such benefits, but the same was not done. It was kept open-ended to extend benefit to Which provides shared IT infrastructure and service to both central and state governments including taxpayers and other stakeholders. The registration front end services, returns, and payments to all taxpayers were provided by GSTN. the importers, who followed those two conditions, even in respect of the AAs issued to them earlier. A cut-off date would have made exporters ineligible for the benefit. Therefore, policy makers, in their own wisdom, kept the door open for the eligible importers, to enjoy the benefit, irrespective of the date / period of issuance of AA, subject to compliance with the conditions imposed. 10. The Revenue further stated that paragraph 4.13 of the FTP had been in existence under different paragraphs in different policy periods for years. Since 2003, all drug companies had been importing their raw materials sourced from unregistered sources, under the ‘pre-import condition’. Silk in any form, raw sugars, natural rubbers, tea, spices and precious metals etc., were allowed to be imported under ‘pre-import condition’ only.

Result 5
Supreme Court of India
The Commissioner Of Central Excise,New ... vs M/S Hari Chand Shri Gopal Etc
Honourable Judges S.N. Variava, Ar. Lakshmanan, S.H. Kapadia
Date of Judgment: 03 Oct 2005
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
   
   
   

Rule 174. Registration of certain persons. (1) Every person, who cures, produces, manufactures, carries on trade, deals as a broker or commission agent, holds private store-room or warehouse or otherwise uses excisable goods or a person who issues invoice or invoices under rule 57G or, as the case may be, Rule 57T shall get registered and shall not engage in the curing, production, manufacture, trade, dealing as broker or commission agent, storing in private store-room or warehouse or use excisable goods without having applied for such registration to the jurisdictional range officer or such officer in such forms as may be specified by the Board. (2) The Central Board of Excise and Customs, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions or limitations as may be specified in such notification, specify person or class of persons from amongst the persons specified in sub-rule (1) who need not obtain such registration. (3) If there are more than one premises requiring registration he shall obtain separate registration certificate for each of the premises. (4) Every registration certificate granted shall be in the specified form and shall be valid only for the premises specified in such certificate. (5) Where a registered person transfers his business to another person the transferee shall obtain a fresh certificate. (6) Where a registered person is a firm or a company or association of persons, any change in the constitution of such a firm, company or association of persons, shall be intimated to the Central Excise Officer within thirty days of such a change for incorporation in the certificate. (7) In case a registered person desires to manufacture a new product, he shall get the product endorsed on his registration certificate. (8) Every registered person, who ceases to carry out the operation or operations he is registered for, shall surrender his registration certificate immediately. (9) The proper officer shall proceed to grant a Registration Certificate under this rule within thirty days of the receipt of an application. If registration certificate is not granted within the said period, the registration applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. (10) Every registered person shall exhibit his registration certificate (or a certified copy thereof) in a conspicuous part of the registered premises. (11) Any registration certificate granted under this rule may be revoked or suspended by the proper officer, if the holder or any person his employ, is found to have committed a breach of any conditions of the Act or these rules or has been convicted of an offence under section 161, read with section 109 or with section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Result 6
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Bharat Forge Limited
Honourable Judges K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy
Date of Judgment: 16 Aug 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 17
   
   
   

We cannot be oblivious to the averments in the writ petition that even previously the same issue had arisen for the procurement of the identical product. The bids were opened on 23.11.2018, wherein, some other bidders quoted at the rate of 5 per cent as the tax liability. The writ petitioner had according to it, has written letter dated 07.12.2018, pointing out that the product fell under Chapter 84 and even the appellants had imported the same product under HSN Code 84148090 attracting GST at the rate of 18 per cent. It also drew inspiration from a letter from the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, dated 30.04.2018, being Circular No.30/4/2018GST, wherein, it was stated that the Council took certain decisions. It also referred to customs invoice dated 21.03.2017, showing import of the product with GST rate being show at 18 per cent. There is also reference to a letter dated 04.06.2018, written by the writ petitioner to the Executive Director of Public Grievance, Ministry of Railways. Therefore, the writ petitioner must be treated as aware of the consequences that would flow from the effect of the terms of the Notification. We, however, notice that the writ petitioner went ahead and made its bid pursuant to the NIT dated 11.04.2017. The case of the writ petitioner, admittedly is, that the appellants opened the tender and made a tabulated statement and found that the writ petitioner would stand ranked at L4. 33. Before we embark on the scope of the Clauses, we have set out, it becomes necessary to refer to the nature and incidence of tax under the GST Act. The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 was published in the Gazette on 12.04.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Central Act’). It provides for an indirect tax. It is, as the very name of the Act suggests, levied on transactions of goods and services or both. Section 2 (11) defines the ‘State Goods and Service Tax Act’ as meaning ‘the respective State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017’. State enactments mirroring substantially similar provisions have been passed. 34. Section 9 of the Central Act provides for levy of the tax called the Central Goods and Services Tax on all intra-state supply of goods and services, except as provided therein. Section 9(3) provides that the Government, may, on the recommendation of the Council, notify categories of supply of goods or services or both, where the tax is to be levied, assessed and recovered on the reverse charge basis. Section 22 provides that every supplier is duty-bound to be registered under the Act, in the State or the Union Territory, other than special category States, from where, he makes taxable supply of goods and services, subject to a certain limit in regard to the turnover. This is again made subject to the provisions of Section 24, which provides for compulsory registration. Under Section 37, there is duty to furnish return.

Result 7
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Cosmo Films Limited
Honourable Judges S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
Date of Judgment: 28 Apr 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 17
   
   
   

44. By the Notification No. 18/2015-Cus dated 01.04.2015, issued in exercise of powers under Section 25 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, goods imported into India against valid AAs were exempted from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon which was specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and from the whole of the additional duty, safeguard duty, transitional product specific safeguard duty and anti-dumping duty leviable thereon, respectively, under Sections 3, 8B, 8C and 9A of the Act. The GST regime came into force with effect from 01-07-2017. However, no corresponding amendment was carried out to this notification but Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was amended by substituting Sections 3 (7) and (9), whereby levy of integrated tax [under Section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and levy of Goods and Service Tax compensation cess leviable under Section 8 of the GST Act (Compensation to States) Cess Act, 2017] was incorporated: "(7) Any article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to integrated tax at such rate, not exceeding 40% as is leviable under section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on a like article on its supply in India, on the value of the imported article as determined under sub-section (8). ********* **************** (9) Any article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to the Goods and Services Tax compensation cess at such rate, as is leviable under section 8 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Cess Act, 2017 on a like article on its supply in India, on the value of the imported article as determined under sub-section (10)." 45. Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended after the coming into force of the GST regime, provided for levy of the following additional duties: (1) levy of a duty (referred to as additional duty) equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India [Section 3 (1) CTA]; (2) levy of such additional duty as would counter-balance the excise duty leviable on any raw materials, components, and ingredients of the same nature as, or similar to those, used in the production or manufacture of such article [Section 3 (3) CTA]; (3) levy of additional duty as would counter-balance the sales tax, value added tax, local tax or any other charges for the time being leviable on a like article on its sale, purchase or transportation in India [SAD, under Section 3 (5) CTA]; (4) levy of integrated tax as leviable under section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; [under Section 3 (7) CTA] and; (5) levy of GST compensation cess at such rate as is leviable under section 8 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Cess Act, 2017 [SAD, under Section 3 (9) CTA].

Result 8
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Cosmo Films Limited
Honourable Judges S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
Date of Judgment: 28 Apr 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 19
   
   
   

Imports under Advance Authorisation are exempted from payment of Basic Customs Duty, Additional Customs Duty, Education Cess, Anti- dumping Duty, Countervailing Duty, Safeguard Duty, Transition Product Specific Safeguard Duty, wherever applicable. Import against supplies covered under paragraph 7.02 (c), (d) and (g) of FTP will not be exempted from payment of applicable Anti-dumping Duty, Countervailing Duty, Safeguard Duty and Transition Product Specific Safeguard Duty, if any. However, imports under Advance Authorisation for physical exports are also exempt from whole of the integrated tax and Compensation Cess leviable under sub-section (7) and sub-section (9) respectively, of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as may be provided in the notification issued by Department of Revenue, and such imports shall be subject to pre-import condition." 49. It is important to notice, at this stage, that exporters were made aware of the changes brought about due to the introduction of GST, through a trade notice, (Trade Notice 11/2017, dated 30-06-2017). To the extent it is relevant to the present case, is extracted below: “Trade Notice 11/2017 Subject: Important FTP provisions in the context of the implementation of the GST regime applicable w.e.f 01.07.2017 Under the GST regime, no exemption from payment of integrated GST and Compensation Cess would be available for imports under Advance Authorisation. The chapter wise provisions of the FTP 2015-20: General Provision: ************ ************* Chapter 4 Under the GST regime, no exemption from payment of integrated GST and Compensation Cess would be available for imports under Advance Authorisation. Importers would need to pay IGST and take input tax credit as applicable under GST rules. However, imports under Advance Authorisation would continue to be exempted from payment of Basic Customs Duty, Additional Customs Duty specified under Section 3( l), 3(3) and 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, Education Cess, Anti-dumping Duty, Safeguard Duty and Transition Product Specific Safeguard Duty, wherever applicable. Applicable GST would need to be paid white making local procurement, using an invalidation letter of Advance Authorisation IDFIA. Recipient of goods can take Input Tax Credit CITC) of the GST paid on such local procurement. This Input Tax Credit can be utilized as per GST rules. Advance Release Order facility shall not be available for procurement of inputs 11nder Advance Authorization scheme except for inputs listed in Schedule 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 2017 No 18 of 2017, with effect from July l, 2017. RAs are directed not to issue ARO except for Schedulc-4 items as stated above.

Result 9
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Vkc Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 13 Sep 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 19
   
   
   

Zero rated payment of tax supply Domestic supplies (a) Accumulation of First Proviso, clause (ii) unutilized input tax credit has arisen due to rate of tax on input goods being higher than the rate of tax on outputs (thus for example, accumulation due to sales made at discount/distress/non supply etc. are not to be allowed to be covered). (b) Should not be specifically excluded through notification. For example, Unutilized ITC = 300 (for goods) and 200 (for services), rate of tax on goods = 10%, rate of tax on output =7%, then: - Threshold condition of inverted duty structure satisfied qua goods, then Entire basket of ITC i.e. 500 eligible for refund subject to adjustment of tax liability. Export of goods Supplies not liable to Second Proviso export duty Export of goods or Drawback in respect of Third Proviso services (a) central tax not claimed or (b) refund of integrated tax not claimed. PART D (iv) The object and purpose of Section 54(3) must be borne in mind: (a) The purpose of the provision is to give effect to the doctrine of equivalence or neutrality which is the basic objective of the GST and this is sought to be achieved by granting seamless credit through Section 16; (b) The legislative background and preparatory material duly support the purpose of the legislation; (c) The State does not want the taxpayers to suffer the ill effect of tax cascading solely because of its decision to offer a reduced rate of tax on outputs, relative to the tax rate on inputs; (d) In the case of the petitioner which is engaged in providing services to Chennai Metro Rail, the original rate of output tax used to be 18 per cent while the input tax on goods and services was between 18 per cent to 28 per cent. As a result of Notification No. 1/2018 and a corresponding State notification, the rate of tax on output supplies, namely construction of mono rails and metro rails, was reduced to 12 per cent; (e) Section 54(3) is not intended to cover a situation where the inverted duty structure is created by assessee due to its own actions such as discount/distress/non-supply as distinguished from the rate structure created by the State; PART D (f) The object of achieving tax neutrality is sought to be implemented for the first time through the anti-profiteering measure embodied in Section 171; (v) The international jurisprudence on GST and tax neutrality postulates that such taxes are not a permanent cost to the business and that businesses are pass through entities. The essential character is of an economically neutral tax through a seamless flow of credit; (vi) A contextual interpretation of Section 54(3) must look at the overall scheme of the statute.

Result 10
Supreme Court of India
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, M.P vs Madhya Bharat Papers Ltd
Honourable Judges R.C.Lahoti
Date of Judgment: 18 Jan 2000
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act (relevant part thereof) reads as under: Registration of dealers - (1) Every dealer liable to pay tax under this Act shall, within such time as may be prescribed for the purpose, make an application for registration under this Act to such authority in the appropriate State as the Central Government may, by general or special order, specify, and every such application shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. (2) Any dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, or where there is no such law in force in the appropriate State or any part thereof, any dealer having a place of business in that State or part, as the case may be, may, notwithstanding that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, apply for registration under this Act to the authority referred to in sub-section (1), and every such application shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section, a dealer shall be deemed to be liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate state notwithstanding that under such law a sale or purchase made by him is exempt from tax or a refund or a rebate of tax is admissible in respect thereof. xxx xxx xxx A bare perusal of the above quoted provision goes to show that every dealer liable to pay tax under the Central Sales Tax Act shall secure a registration under sub-Section (1) of Section 7. Such dealers as have a place of business in a State and are not liable to pay tax under the Central Act may still have themselves registered under sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act if (i) they are dealers liable to pay tax under the Sales Tax law of the appropriate State (notwithstanding the fact that the sales or purchases made by them are exempt from tax or a refund or a rebate of tax is admissible in respect thereof), or (ii) there is no State Legislation attracting liability to pay tax on such dealers. Such a prayer for registration shall be made to the same authority who grants registration under sub Section (1). Registration under sub-section (1) is compulsory; registration under sub-section (2) is optional. For the purpose of securing a registration under sub-section (2) abovesaid the dealer need not necessarily be liable to pay any amount of tax.

Result 11
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs M/S Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date of Judgment: 19 May 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 19
   
   
   

In clause (c), the condition of supply being made for a consideration has not been incorporated but this only for activities provided in Schedule I; and PART B (c) The argument that supplies can be made without consideration for activities other than those specified in Schedule I would make clause (c) of Section 7(1) redundant. (viii) Notification 10/2017 cannot be sustained under Section 5(4) of the IGST Act: (a) The unamended Section 5(4) of the IGST Act provides that integrated tax in respect of supplies made by an unregistered supplier to a registered person shall be paid by such person on reverse charge basis as a recipient of supply; (b) The section was a standalone section, operating on its own, and did not require anything to be specified by way of a notification. Thus, Notification 10/2017 cannot be sustained under Section 5(4); (c) Pursuant to the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act 2018, Section 5(4) was amended w.e.f. 1 February 2019 to provide that the Government may, based on the recommendations of the GST Council, by notification, specify a class of registered persons who shall, in respect of supply of specified categories of goods or services or both received from an unregistered supplier, pay the tax on reverse charge basis as the recipient; (d) The reliance placed by the Government on the amended Section 5(4) of the IGST Act to justify Notification 10/2017 is erroneous as: • There was no power to issue a notification specifying the class of registered person liable to pay tax under reverse charge basis under Section 5(4) at the time when the impugned notification was PART B issued on 28 June 2017. The power has been granted by amendment w.e.f. 1 February 2019; • Section 2(93) of the CGST Act provides that any reference to a person to whom supply is made shall be construed as reference to the recipient of supply. Thus, the person under Section 5(4) who has received the supply is the recipient of the supply. Even after the amendment of Section 5(4), only the recipient can be specified as a person liable to pay tax; and • Section 2(98) of the CGST Act defines ‘reverse charge’ as the liability to pay tax by the recipient of the supply instead of the supplier. Thus, only the recipient can be made liable to pay tax on a reverse charge basis; (ix) Section 13(9) of the IGST Act is only relevant to determine the place of supply and not the recipient of supply. Whether the supply of service is an export of services under Section 2(6)(a) of the IGST Act or an import of services under Section 2(11), read with Section 7(4) of the IGST Act; or an inter-State supply of service, is not determined by Section 13(9); (x) Notification 10/2017 has been issued on the recommendation of the GST Council under Section 5(3) of the IGST Act and not under Article 279A of the Constitution.

Result 12
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs M/S Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date of Judgment: 19 May 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
   
   
   

Once these are made available through the exercise of plenary power, the rest of the details can always emerge through the exercise of delegated powers; (xxvi) The constitutional mandate of Articles 269A and 286 finds effect under the IGST Act. The IGST Act, and specifically Section 5(1) therein, has defined the subject matter of taxation (inter-state supply of goods and services), the taxable person under Section 2(107) read with Section 24(iii) of the CGST Act, a maximum cap of 40 per cent and determination of taxable value in terms of Section 15 of the CGST Act. Only the identification of the taxable person is delegated to the Union Government which makes its decisions on the basis of the recommendations of the GST Council; K. GST Council recommendations- Cooperative federalism and collaborative federalism 1968 (3) SCR 251 1979 (1) SCC 441 PART B (xxvii) GST is a consumption tax and the tax jurisdiction extends to the place the supply is consumed. Since the foreign shipping line or foreign exporter are located in a non-taxable territory, the Indian importer has to be taxed on a reverse charge basis since the service is consumed in India. The purpose is to make the Indian shipping lines as competitive as foreign shipping lines. ITC is available to the importer and the tax paid on such a reverse charge can be offset in the importer’s output tax liability. Therefore, there is no additional burden on the importer- it is a mere alteration of the mechanism; (xxviii) The integrated tax was essential to level the playing field between foreign shipping lines and Indian shipping lines since the former were not required to charge any tax on the recipient of supply of service; (xxix) The spirit of the cooperative federalism must guide the functioning of the GST Council as envisaged in Article 279A(6). This was espoused by this Court in Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Private Limited23 where it was held that there is a need for a harmonised structure of goods and service tax. The GST Council is empowered to decide on every aspect of the GST law. The recommendations of the GST Council are binding on the executive and the legislature-while it frames laws relating to GST by the power under Article 246A; (xxx) The GST Council recommends the law, rules and notifications through a voting architecture that is prescribed in Article 279A(6) and quorum (2022) 2 SCC 603 (“VKC Footsteps”) PART B requirements in Article 279A(7). Every decision flows from one common source; (xxxi) The GST Council is the only constitutional body which acts as a converging point or a platform for both the federal units to work in a harmonious manner in structuring the goods and service tax, in the process of developing a harmonised national market for goods and services; (xxxii) Article 246A states that the power to legislate GST laws is only with the Union of India and the States.

Result 13
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India Through Its ... vs Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Honourable Judges A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, C.T. Ravikumar
Date of Judgment: 28 Oct 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
   
   
   

In view of the fact that the final relief sought by the Petitioner has been granted and the petition is allowed, no separate order is required to be passed in the application seeking interim relief. Accordingly, the said application is disposed of as such.” 18. The appellant has assailed the view so taken by the High Court. At the outset, it was urged that the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by respondent No.1. This objection is founded on the argument that the source of power to levy and collect GST under the 2017 Act vests both in the State and the Centre. The Delhi High Court could not have decided the issues concerning other State(s) and that too without making them as party respondent. The writ petitioner has chosen to only implead the Council which is a body created only to decide about the policy and is not a tax collector as such. Thus, besides the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction, the writ petition suffered from the vice of non­joinder of necessary parties. 19. As regards the merits, the appellant has invited our attention to the constitutional background and the erstwhile regimes of the central excise law, service tax law etc., and in contrast, the dispensation provided in the GST regime and the obligation of every outward supplier to pay OTL. It is urged that the GST is a beginning of a new era of cooperative federalism and the purport of Article 246A read with Article 279A of the Constitution fortify that position. It is a regime to bring about paradigm shift in the erstwhile taxes such as excise duty, service tax, entry tax, VAT and other additional and minor levies based on multiple taxable events, which have been subsumed into one taxable event called “supply of goods and services”. The new dispensation enables both the Union of India and the respective States to become joint federal partner in taxing goods and services simultaneously and have equal rates on the occurrence of the taxable event. Notably, the 2017 Act is not ascribable to any Entry in List I, List II or for that matter, List III. It is a sui generis regime in the Constitution by virtue of Article 246A read with Article 279A and the field of taxation thereunder is goods and services and the power to tax is simultaneous and coextensive. 20. Shri N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, took us through the provisions of the 2017 Act regarding payment of duties/taxes and availing of ITC including the eligibility and utilization of ITC. As regards the eligibility and utilization of ITC, there is a statutory duty fastened on every registered person governed under various regimes and presently under the GST law, to pay OTL and a corresponding right to avail and utilize ITC, subject to eligibility and conditions specified therefor.

Result 14
Supreme Court of India
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr
Honourable Judges H. L. Gokhale, A. K. Patnaik, R. V. Raveendran
Date of Judgment: 11 Oct 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
   
   
   

8. We may next refer to the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1999 (Note : Stamp Laws may vary from state to state, though generally the provisions may be similar). Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 casts upon the party, liable to pay stamp duty, an obligation to set forth in the instrument all facts and circumstances which affect the chargeability of duty on that instrument. Article 23 prescribes stamp duty on `Conveyance'. In many States appropriate amendments have been made whereby agreements of sale acknowledging delivery of possession or power of Attorney authorizes the attorney to `sell any immovable property are charged with the same duty as leviable on conveyance. 9. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 which makes a deed of conveyance compulsorily registrable. We extract below the relevant portions of section 17. "Section 17 - Documents of which registration is compulsory- (1) The following documents shall be registered, namely:-- xxxxx (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property. xxxxx (1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A. Advantages of Registration 10. In the earlier order dated 15.5.2009, the objects and benefits of registration were explained and we extract them for ready reference : "The Registration Act, 1908, was enacted with the intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to transactions relating to immovable property and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and providing for consequences of non-registration. Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future "any right, title or interest" whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs. 100 and upwards to or in immovable property. Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property comprised therein or received as evidence of any transaction affected such property, unless it has been registered. Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed.

Result 15
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Vkc Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 13 Sep 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
   
   
   

PART D 14 Mr Sridharan urged that Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, to the extent to which it denies refund of ITC relatable to input services, is ultra vires Section 54. The submission has been premised on the following propositions: (i) GST is a destination-based consumption tax. The fundamental principle of GST laws worldwide is that it is a multistage tax. Each point in a supply chain is potentially taxed. However, suppliers are entitled to avail credit of taxes paid at an anterior stage. This feature of GST leads to its description as being a tax on value addition, with the final consumer alone ultimately bearing the tax. The GST laws enacted in India are also based on this principle; (ii) In All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. Union of India15, this Court held that excise duty, service tax and value added tax legislation provide for taxes on value addition and are destination based-consumption taxes. These are not charges on the business but on the consumer. Though the erstwhile tax legislation, prior to the enforcement of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act 2016, was based on the principle of value addition and consumption tax, there was no seamless flow of credit between Central and State levies. This anomaly was sought to be addressed by the constitutional amendment and by the legislation which has been enacted in pursuance of it; 2007 (7) SCC 527 PART D (iii) The purpose of the One Hundred and First Constitutional Amendment was: (a) to replace a number of indirect taxes being levied by the Union Government and the State Governments; (b) to obviate and remove the cascading effect of taxes; and (c) to provide for a common national market for goods and services. (iv) The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the bill introducing the CGST Act also emphasised that there would be a seamless transfer of ITC from one stage to another in the chain of value addition; (v) These principles reaffirmed the guidelines issued by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development which emphasise that (a) value added tax systems are designed to tax final consumption; (b) only the consumers should bear the tax burden; and (c) the main characteristic of a value added tax is of preserving neutrality in the value chain. (vi) Compelling economic and fiscal realities necessitated the levy of value added tax like GST in place of traditional excise duties, service tax, sales tax and other legislation; (vii) In a tax regime which was not based on value added tax, ensuring refund of tax paid at various stages of manufacturing would be cumbersome and complicated.

Result 16
Supreme Court of India
State Of Gujarat vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India ...
Honourable Judges M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna
Date of Judgment: 21 Jan 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 19
   
   
   

Place: Signature : Date: Status :” 9. Form-26 (Entry No.255) as applicable in years 2000/2002 after the amended Entry No.255(2) vide Notifications dated 14.11.2000 and 16.01.2002 reads as under:- “FORM-26 [Entry 255] Certificate by an eligible unit purchasing, goods for use in manufacturing goods. [See Entry at serial No.255 inserted by Government Notification, Finance Department No. (GHN-8) GST-1092/ (S.49)-(249)-TH dated the 5th March, 1992 issued under section 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act,1969] I, ________ of M/s. Address ____________ certify the I/the said ______ as/is a registered dealer holding a certificate of registration No._____ dated ______ and also holding a certificate No. ________ dated _______ granted by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat State under Government Notification No. (GHN-8) GST-1092 (S.49)-(249) TH, dated the 5th March, 1992 and that the goods being raw materials, processing materials mentioned in bills/cash memo/invoice No. ______ dated ___________ of M/s ___________ will be used by me/the said ______ (1) [in the industrial unit for which the eligibility certificate has been obtained] in the manufacture of goods for sale (2) [within the State or outside the State of Gujarat or for dispatch either to its another unit or division situated within the State for use in the manufacture of other goods for sale by such another unit or division, or to its another unit or division situated outside the State for use in the manufacture of other goods] or being the packing materials mentioned in bill/cash memo/invoice No._______ dated _________ of M/s. _________ will be used in the packing of the goods so manufactured, namely _____________ I further certify that the aforesaid certificate was in force on the date of the aforesaid purchase of goods. Place: Signature : Date: Status : (1) These words were substituted for "within the state of Gujarat" by s-49 (332) dt. 14-11-2000. (2) These words were inserted by s-49 (357) dt. 16-01- 2002.” 10. Thus, as per the original Entry No.255(2) issued by Notification dated 05.03.1992 while claiming the exemption from payment of purchase tax of raw materials, processing materials or consumable stores, the following conditions were required to be fulfilled/complied with:- (i) That the eligible unit was required to furnish to the selling dealer a certificate in Form No.26 declaring inter alia that the goods are required for use by him/it within the State of Gujarat as raw materials, processing materials or consumable stores in the manufacture of goods for sale within the State of Gujarat or as packing materials in packing of goods so manufactured; and (ii) That the eligible unit shall actually use the goods purchased within the State of Gujarat as raw materials, processing materials or consumable stores in the manufacture of goods for sale within the State of Gujarat or outside the State of Gujarat as packing materials for the packing of the goods so manufactured.

Result 17
Supreme Court of India
Pradeep Goyal vs Union Of India
Honourable Judges M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 18 Jul 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
   
   
   

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 320 OF 2022 Pradeep Goyal …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents ORDER M.R. SHAH, J. 1. By way of this Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant by profession, by way of present Public Interest Ligation has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents – respective States and the GST Council to take all necessary steps to implement a system for electronic (digital) generation of a Document Identification Number (DIN) for all communications sent by the State Tax Officers to taxpayers and other concerned persons. 1.1 It is also prayed to direct the GST Council to consider and take a policy decision in respect of implementation of the DIN system by all the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.08.02 16:42:03 IST Reason: States. 2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that by implementing a system for electronic (digital) generation of a DIN, it will usher in transparency and accountability in the indirect tax administration. It is submitted that as such the same is the Government’s objective. It is submitted that the same may prevent any abuse by the Departmental Officers of pre-dating communications and ratifying actions by authorizations subsequently made out in the files. 2.1 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that even Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India had earlier asked the Department of Revenue to come up with specific measures to ensure that the honest taxpayers are not harassed and served better. It is submitted that in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Prime Minister, the Central Government had taken a decision as far as back in the year 2019 to implement the DIN system of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). It is submitted that as per the press note issued by the Ministry of Finance on and from 01.10.2019, every CBDT communication will have to have a Document Identification Number (DIN). 2.2 It is averred that the Document Identification Number system, which will bring in transparency and accountability in the tax administration and, as on today, the same has been implemented only by two States, i.e., the States of Karnataka and Kerala. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that GST Council as per Article 279A of the Constitution of India can make recommendations to the States on any matter relating to GST. Therefore, when implementation of the DIN system is in the larger public interest and the objective to implement the DIN system is to bring in transparency and accountability in the indirect tax administration, it is prayed to direct the respondents – States to implement the DIN system.

Result 18
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Cosmo Films Limited
Honourable Judges S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
Date of Judgment: 28 Apr 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 22
   
   
   

58. Now, coming to the notifications dated 13.10.2017 (No. 79/2017, issued under the Customs Act, 1962) and No. 33 (issued in exercise of Section 5 of the FTDRA read with Para 1.02 of the FTP) the exemption from payment of IGST at the time of import of input materials under AA was granted. The exemption was, however, not absolute. The conditions incorporated in the Notification (No. 79/2017), were one, that the exemption could only be extended so long as exports made under the AAs were physical exports in nature and the other that to avail such benefit, one was to follow the ‘pre-import condition’. 59. ‘Physical export’ is defined in paragraph 4.05(c) and paragraph 9.20 of the FTP read with Section 2(e) of the FTDRA as follows: (e) "import" and 'export" means respectively bringing into, or taking out of, India ang goods by land, sea or air” Essentially, therefore, export involves taking goods out of India. AAs can be issued either to a manufacturer exporter or merchant exporter tied to supporting manufacturer (as per paragraph 4.05). However, paragraph 4.05 of the FTP defines categories for which AAs can be issued, somewhat expansively and prescribes that – “(c) Advance Authorization shall be issued for: (i) Physical export (including export to SEZ); (ii) Intermediate supply; and/ or (iii) Supply of goods to the categories mentioned in paragraph 7.02 (b), (c), (e), (f) (g) and (h) of this FTP. (iv) Supply of 'stores' on board of foreign going vessel / aircraft, subject to condition that there is specific Standard Input Output Norms in respect of item supplied.” The definition extends in specific terms (under Chapter 4 of FTP) - supplies made to SEZ are considered as ‘physical exports’ despite not being an event in which goods are being taken out of India. The other three categories defined under (c) (ii), (iii) & (iv) are ineligible as ‘physical exports’. Supplies of intermediate goods are covered by letter of invalidation, whereas supplies covered under Chapter 7 of the FTP are considered as ‘deemed exports’. These supplies are ineligible for being considered ‘physical exports’. Therefore, any category of supply, be it under letter of invalidation and/or to EOU and/or under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) and/or to Mega Power Projects, other than actual exports to other country and supply to SEZ, cannot be considered as ‘physical exports’. One of the objects behind the impugned notifications was to ensure that the entire exports made under AAs towards discharge of export orders were physical exports. In case the entire exports were not physical exports, the AAs were automatically ineligible for exemption. 60. The introduction of the GST regime resulted in a substantial and fundamental overhaul of the indirect tax structure, at the State and Central levels. The GST regime is based on the idea of removing cascading effect of the taxes. The cascading effect of taxes mean levy of tax on tax.

Result 19
Supreme Court of India
Pradeep Goyal vs Union Of India
Honourable Judges M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 18 Jul 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to take all necessary steps to implement a system for electronic (digital) generation of a Document Identification Number(DIN) for all communications sent by the state tax officers to taxpayers and other concerned persons; b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the GST Council to consider and take a policy decision in respect of implementation of DIN system by all the states; c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central Government/CBIC to introduce centralised DIN for the entire country; d. pass such further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 6. It cannot be disputed that implementing the system for electronic (digital) generation of a Document Identification Number (DIN) for all communications sent by the State Tax Officers to taxpayers and other concerned persons would be in the larger public interest and enhance good governance. It will bring in transparency and accountability in the indirect tax administration, which are so vital to efficient governance. Even the Central Government has also taken a decision and as such implemented the DIN system of Central Board of Direct Taxes and on and from 01.10.2019, as every CBDT communication will have to have a Document Identification Number (DIN). But, as on today, only two States, namely, the States of Karnataka and Kerala have implemented the system for electronic (digital) generation of a DIN in the indirect tax administration, which is laudable and to be appreciated. 7. In view of the implementation of the GST and as per Article 279A of the Constitution of India, the GST Council is empowered to make recommendations to the States on any matter relating to GST. The GST Council can also issue advisories to the respective States for implementation of the DIN system, which shall be in the larger public interest and which may bring in transparency and accountability in the indirect tax administration. Therefore, we dispose of the present writ petition by directing the Union of India / GST Council to issue advisory / instructions / recommendations to the respective States regarding implementation of the system of electronic (digital) generation of a DIN in the indirect tax administration, which is already being implemented by the States of Karnataka and Kerala. We impress upon the concerned States to consider to implement the system for electronic (digital) generation of a DIN for all communications sent by the State Tax Officers to taxpayers and other concerned persons so as to bring in transparency and accountability in the indirect tax administration at the earliest. With this, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Result 20
Supreme Court of India
M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs Union Of India
Honourable Judges B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 17 Oct 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

He submits that, in view of the (1990) 3 SCC 87 (1996) 3 SCC 407 2020 SCC Online SC 378 constitutional amendment, a new era of GST has emerged. He submits that the new era emphasizes on the principle of pooled sovereignty where States and Centre share equal responsibilities. Learned ASG submits that Article 279A of the Constitution provides for the establishment of the GST Council. It is submitted that the GST Council consists of (a) the Union Finance Minister; (b) the Union Minister of State in charge of Revenue or Finance; and (c) the Minister in charge of Finance or Taxation or any other Minister nominated by each State Government. He submits that the GST Council has been empowered to make recommendations to the Union and the States on the taxes, cesses and surcharges levied by the Union, the States and the local bodies which are to be subsumed in the GST. It is submitted that clause (6) of Article 279A of the Constitution of India directs the GST Council to be guided by the need for a harmonized structure of GST and the development of a harmonized national market for goods and services, while discharging its functions. He submits that under clause (1) of Article 246A of the Constitution, both the Parliament as well as the State Legislatures have been empowered to make laws with respect to GST to be imposed by the Union or by such States, whereas clause (2) of the said Article empowers Parliament to make laws with respect to GST where the supply of goods, or of services, or both takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. 18. Learned ASG would, therefore, submit that a sea change has occurred with the advent of GST from 1 st July 2017. The first change, in the submission of the learned ASG, is that the earlier tax regime was origin based, whereas the new tax regime is destination based. Under the old regime, the Centre was collecting 100% excise duty, service tax, central sales tax, etc. and the States were collecting 100% Value Added Tax (“VAT” for short). Under the old tax regime, there was no uniformity with regard to State levies, whereas under the new tax regime, there is uniformity. Under the new regime, both Union and the States come on the same platform under Articles 246A and 279A of the Constitution and become common partners for taxing together. Under the new regime, both States as well as Union charge at the same rate. Learned ASG submits that the only common feature in the old regime as well as in the new regime is that the Centre continues to fund the States. 19. Learned ASG further submitted that pursuant to the enactment of GST, a notification, being Notification No. 21 of 2017, was issued on 18th July 2017, thereby withdrawing the exemptions granted previously under the erstwhile excise regime. He submits that the appellants have not challenged the validity of the said Notification.

Result 21
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs M/S Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date of Judgment: 19 May 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 32
   
   
   

Therefore, Parliament PART C bound itself to the recommendations of the GST Council by enacting the IGST Act and CGST Act; and (v) The recommendations by the GST Council are transformed into legislation on a combined reading of Article 279A and Sections 5,6, and 22 of the IGST Act 2017 and Sections 9,11, and 164 of the CGST Act. C. 1 Legislative History of the Constitution Amendment Act 2016 Statement of Objects and Reasons 22 As early as in 2004, the Task Force on implementation of the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act 2003 had recommended a shift to consumption taxes to increase efficiency in production and enhance international competitiveness of Indian goods and services. The need for such an enormous change in the tax regime arose out of the distortions in the then existing indirect tax regime which suffered from the drawback of multiplicity of taxes, taxable events, compliances, and authorities. For instance, the rate of the sales tax and value added tax on the same goods would differ across India. Several states would impose entry taxes on goods before the goods entered their boundaries. The First Discussion Paper on Goods and Services Tax in India released by the Empowered Committee in November 2009 explained the rationale for introducing the GST regime in the following terms:41 “The introduction of GST at the Central level will not only include comprehensively more indirect Central Taxes and integrate goods and service taxes for the purpose of set-off relief, but may also lead to revenue gain for the Centre Empowered Committee, First Discussion Paper on Goods and Services Tax, (2009) Pars 1.13-1.14 PART C through widening of the dealer base by capturing value added addition in the distributive trade and increased compliance. In the existing State-level VAT structure there are also certain short comings as follows. There are, for instance, even now, several taxes which are in the nature of indirect tax on goods and services, such as luxury tax, entertainment tax, etc., and yet not subsumed n the VAT. Moreover, in the present State- level VAT scheme, CENVAT load on the goods remains included in the value to be taxed under State VAT, and contributing to that extent a cascading effect on account of CENVAT element. This CENVAT load needs to be removed. […] However, for this GST to be introduced at the State-level, it is essential that the States should be given the power of levy of taxation of all services. This power of levy of service taxes has so long been only with Centre. A Constitutional Amendment will be made for giving this power also to the States. Moreover, with the introduction of GST, burden of Central Sales Tax (CST) will also be removed.

Result 22
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs M/S Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date of Judgment: 19 May 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 28
   
   
   

3/1/2018-IGST dated 25 May 2018 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The impugned levy of IGST on the freight element of CIF contracts and high seas purchase contracts is ultra vires as IGST is paid on the total value of goods; (iii) In Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs34, in the context of imposition of customs duty, it was held that in a CIF contract, the freight is part of the price paid to the seller and further addition of transportation charges is contrary to the statutory provisions; and (iv) The judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Jalyan Udyog35 which states that a legal fiction can be created even by delegated legislation, is inapplicable as in that case, the fiction created was within the parameters of the parent provision. In this case, the fiction violates Section 5(3) of the IGST Act. (2006) 12 SCC 583 (1994) 1 SCC 318 PART B 17 Mr Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor36 in SLP(C) No. 13958/2020, has submitted that the argument of the ASG that the levy has been introduced to create a level playing field is fallacious as: (i) Prior to 2016, all import transportation, whether undertaken by Indian or foreign shipping lines was outside the scope of levy. Service tax was imposed on import transactions undertaken by Indian shipping lines only to allow them to avail CENVAT credit. This credit was protected even though no service tax was payable on export transportation. Further, Indian importers availing services of foreign shipping lines were liable to pay service tax under reverse charge. This position continued under the GST regime and the only transaction outside the ambit was when the foreign exporter availed the services of a foreign shipping line to transport goods to India; and (ii) The introduction of levy of service tax or GST on import transactions was by way of an incentive to Indian shipping lines. Thus, it cannot now be contended that the level playing field has been affected because of this levy. 18 Similar submissions have been addressed by Dr C Manickam37, Mr Rajat Mittal38and Mr Abhishek A Rastogi39, which we have not recorded separately for the sake of brevity. 19 The rival submissions will now be analysed. IA No. 118754/2021 in SLP(C) No. Appearing for the respondent in SLP(C) No. 3680/2021 Appearing for the respondent in SLP(C) No. 1798/2021 Appearing on behalf of the intervenor in IA No. 74108/2021 in SLP(C) No. 13958/2020 PART C C Constitutional Architecture of GST 20 Before we proceed to analyse the vires of the impugned notifications, it is pertinent to contextualize the constitutional architecture of the GST. The Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment Act) 201640 was enacted on 8 September 2016 introducing Article 246A and 279A. Article 246A stipulates that both the Parliament and the State legislatures have the power to legislate on GST: “246A.

Result 23
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Vkc Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 13 Sep 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 35
   
   
   

Clause (4) of Article 279(A) empowers the GST Council to make recommendations to the Union and the States on the aspects comprehended in sub-clauses (a) to (h) of Clause (4), which are extracted below: “[…] (a) the taxes, cesses and surcharges levied by the Union, the States and the local bodies which may be subsumed in the goods and services tax; (b) the goods and services that may be subjected to, or exempted from the goods and services tax; (c) model Goods and Services Tax Laws, principles of levy, apportionment of Goods and Services Tax levied on supplies in the course of inter-State trade or commerce under article 269A and the principles that govern the place of supply; (d) the threshold limit of turnover below which goods and services may be exempted from goods and services tax; (e) the rates including floor rates with bands of goods and services tax; (f) any special rate or rates for a specified period, to raise additional resources during any natural calamity or disaster; (g) special provision with respect to the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand; and (h) any other matter relating to the goods and services tax, as the Council may decide.” PART E Clause (6) of Article 279A stipulates that: “(6) While discharging the functions conferred by this article, the Goods and Services Tax Council shall be guided by the need for a harmonised structure of goods and services tax and for the development of a harmonised national market for goods and services.” 34 Article 279A(6) indicates that in the discharge of its functions, the GST Council is to be guided by the need for a harmonised structure of goods and services tax and the development of a harmonised national market for goods and services. This emphasis on harmony is crucial to co-operative federalism. It underscores that in a federal arrangement where the States and Union are converging together for the first time to adopt the same event for taxation, both sets of partners must be guided by the over-arching need to preserve harmony. Harmony postulates balance, an acceptance of mutual co-existence. Clauses (7) to (11) of Article 279A contain provisions for quorum, procedure and voting. Clause (9) is a clear indicator of the absence of supremacy either of the Union of the States. Under sub clause (a) of Clause 9, the vote of the Union Government is to have a weightage of one-third of the total votes cast, while the votes of all the State Governments together are to have a weightage of two-thirds of the total votes cast. Every decision of the Council is to be taken by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the weighted votes of the members present and voting. The principle of harmony does not postulate exact coincidence in all points of comparison or reference.

Result 24
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs M/S Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date of Judgment: 19 May 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
   
   
   

The power to issue such a notification can be traced back to Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the IGST Act; D. Inter-state supply and Place of Supply (xiii) The import of service in this case is an inter-state supply in terms of Section 7(4) read with Section 13(1) and 13(9) of the IGST Act. Although the contracting parties are foreign, the critical limb of the transaction happens in the taxable territory, namely, India. Hence, the transaction can also fall under Section 7(5)(c) read with Section 13(1) and Section 13(9) of the IGST Act; (xiv) Section 13(9) of the IGST Act stipulates that the place of supply of services of transportation of goods other than by way of mail or courier shall be the place PART B of destination of such goods. Even though the contracting parties – the foreign shipping line and the foreign exporter – are outside the territory of India, the provision of service is for the Indian importer and consequently the consumption and exhaustion of service which is a critical limb, both commercially and legally, happens only in the hands of the Indian importer; E. Time of Supply (xv) Section 13(5) of the CGST Act contains a residual provision for determining time of supply to be the date on which the tax is paid. Since the other sub- sections in Section 13 are not applicable for construing the time of supply, Section 13(5) of the CGST Act would be applicable; F. Composite Supply (xvi) The CIF transaction and IGST on ocean freight are two independent transactions, entitled to suffer independent levies and do not qualify as a composite supply under Section 2(30) of the CGST; (xvii) GST and customs duties are not exclusive means of taxation. GST is a destination-based tax. The integrated tax is being sought to be imposed on the supply of service and not on the goods. Separate aspects are being taxed, hence it cannot be termed as overlapping. Moreover, the tax is on the value of goods, and not the freight. Tax paid at an anterior stage is not double taxation if it is included in the overall value; (xviii) The discharge of reverse charge taxation does not make two independent contracts as a composite contract. The contract between the foreign shipping PART B line and the foreign exporter is distinct and independent of the contract between the foreign exporter and the Indian importer.

Result 25
Supreme Court of India
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr
Honourable Judges Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker
Date of Judgment: 18 Jul 2005
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 18
   
   
   

In that view of the matter, the assessment orders which had got merged with the first appellate orders could not have been revised. Significantly, by the revisional orders the revisional authority set aside only the assessment orders, though according to the show cause notices the respondent No.1 was required to show cause as to why the exemption notification shall not be recalled. In the operative part of the order, only the assessment orders have been quashed. The final certificate was issued to the respondent No.1-company on Ist June, 1996 but was made effective from 11.8.1995. Undisputedly, the provisional registration certificate under the Act was originally valid upto 14.2.1994 and was re-validated upto 30.6.1995. On 17.6.1995 an application was made for its renewal upto 31.12.1995 and the requisite fee had been deposited and the renewal was granted. Though much stress was laid on the absence of a certificate of provisional registration upto the date of commercial production, it has not been disputed that an application for extension of the validity period was filed on 17.6.1995. A certificate of registration as a dealer was issued on 1st January, 1996 same was made effective from 11.8.1995. A plea was made about absence of the validity of provisional certificate of registration for two months. That actually loses significance because the application for extension of period of validation had not been turned down at any subsequent point of time. It was urged on behalf of the appellant-State that declaration forms under the Central Act were not filed within the time and/or were defective. That does not in reality amount to non-compliance of a statutory provision. The respondent No.1-company was claiming exemption and, therefore, had not filed the declaration forms. Some of the forms which were filed were treated to be defective. Undisputedly, before the revisional authority a prayer was made for grant of opportunity to rectify the defects, if any. That was turned down. It is to be noted that under Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (in short the `Registration Rules') the declaration form can be filed at a subsequent point of time and not necessarily along with returns. On an application being made before the Assessing Officer the exemption can be granted. The object of the Rule is to ensure that the assessee is not denied a benefit which is available to it under law on a technical plea. The Assessing Officer is empowered to grant time. That means that the provisions requiring filing of declaration forms along with the return is a directory provision and not a mandatory provision. In a given case even the declaration forms can be filed before the appellate authority as an appeal is continuation of the assessment proceedings.

Result 26
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Cosmo Films Limited
Honourable Judges S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
Date of Judgment: 28 Apr 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 23
   
   
   

The GST is levied on the net value added portion and not on the entire transaction value as the taxpayer would enjoy input tax credit. Barring few indirect taxes, all the major indirect taxes levied by the Central and State governments are subsumed into the GST. Consequently, taxpayers and suppliers are untroubled about paying multiple indirect taxes under different laws. In the GST framework, simple rules have been prescribed to utilize the cross-sectional credit of input taxes. A trader who could not claim credit of tax paid on services, can seek and get credit on goods as well as services. This framework of seamless credit was introduced to safeguard that taxes on supplies are paid to the extent of value additions and net liability- and to avoid double taxation. 61. The introduction of GST meant considerable legislative exercise in the form of repeal of several enactments (in the wake of the 101st Amendment to the Constitution, introducing Articles 246A, 269A, 279A, amendment to Articles 286 and 366, besides amending List I, II and III of the Seventh Schedule) and enactment of an entirely new set of laws. In this scheme, the new levies were IGST and compensation cess. These were not part of the original Notification No. 18/2015, and necessitated its amendment. Since the entire GST universe, so to say, is dependent on a comprehensive input credit and refund system, the policy makers (which in this case, were tax administrators and the DGFT) were of the opinion that since countervailing duty (CVD) and special additional duty (SAD), which were subsumed under the GST regime and the other levy (compensation cess), the previous regime of permitting AAs to govern import of duty free articles, as inputs, should continue, but that for the new levies, the system of input credit, and refunds should prevail. 62. In this court’s opinion, the introduction of the ‘pre-import condition’ may have resulted in hardship to the exporters, because even whilst they fulfilled the physical export criteria, they could not continue with their former business practices of importing inputs, after applying for AAs, to fulfil their overseas contractual obligations. The new dispensation required them to pay the two duties, and then claim refunds, after satisfying that the inputs had been utilized fully (wastage excluded) for producing the final export goods. The re-shaping of their businesses caused inconvenience to them. Yet, that cannot be a ground to hold that the insertion of the ‘pre-import condition’, was arbitrary, as the High Court concluded. It was held, in Rohitash Kumar & Ors. v Om Prakash Sharma & Ors31 that inconvenience or hardship is not a ground for the court to interpret the plain language of the statute differently, to give relief. “In Mysore SEB v. Bangalore Woolen Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 1128 a Constitution Bench of this Court held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.

Result 27
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Vkc Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 13 Sep 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 47
   
   
   

According to the assesses, the GST regime is a result of a long- standing exercise of legislative preparation in the doctrine of equivalence and tax neutrality. According to the submission, the doctrine of equivalence postulated an equivalence between goods and services in the VAT regime, which must a fortiori be so under the auspices of a unified GST legislation which contemplates that businesses are only pass-through entities. The second plane of the submission is that the function of the GST Council, as specified in Article 279A(6), is that it is to be guided by the need for a harmonized structure of GST and a harmonized national market for goods and services. Clause (12A) of Article 366 provides for the levy of GST on both- goods and services. In this context, it was urged that in any fiscal regime, there are five essential components comprising of (a) taxable events; (b) taxable persons; (c) measure of tax; and (d) rate of tax; and (e) administrative machinery. In all these, it is urged that the CGST makes absolutely no distinction between goods and services. Section 16 which provides for the utilization of ITC makes no distinction between goods and services. The pale of the law, it was urged, applies substantive provisions similarly in the case of goods as well as services except as regard rates. But as regards rates, it was urged that even within the category of goods, the rates may or do vary. The legislature, for the first time, introduced anti-profiteering provisions based on the precept that a reduction in the rate of tax must be passed on to the consumer. When neutrality was not intended, as in the case of Section 17(5), a specific provision has been made by the legislature where the ITC cannot be availed of in those cases. Once the threshold of Section 17(5) is crossed, tax neutrality must, in their submission, be achieved. PART F Finally, it was also urged that an inverted duty structure arises in many cases where the rate of tax on output supplies is reduced in order to fulfil certain objectives guided by public interest such as encouraging infrastructure development. In this backdrop, it was submitted that where the reduction of the rate of tax on outward supplies is in pursuance of the policy of the State, the ultimate object of achieving tax neutrality must be given full effect by fully effectuating a refund under Section 54(3) by allowing a refund of unutilized ITC, whether relatable to goods or services. 57 The submission based on the doctrine of equivalence places reliance on the decision of a three judge Bench of this Court in Association of Leasing and Financial Service Companies v. Union of India 26 . Chief Justice S H Kapadia, speaking for a three judge Bench, dealt with the validity of the provisions of Sections 65(12) and 65(105) (zm) of the Finance Act 1994, in so far as the said provisions sought to levy service tax on leasing and hire purchase.

Result 28
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs M/S Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date of Judgment: 19 May 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
   
   
   

Respondent WITH C.A. No. 1390/2022 With C.A. No. 1394/2022 With C.A. No. 1417/2022 With C.A. No. 1419/2022 With C.A. No. 1445/2022 With C.A. No. 1414/2022 With C.A. No. 1402/2022 Signature Not Verified With Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar C.A. No. 1412/2022 With Date: 2022.05.19 17:36:53 IST Reason: C.A. No. 1411/2022 With C.A. No. 1413/2022 With C.A. No. 1415/2022 With C.A. No. 1418/2022 With C.A. No. 1420/2022 With C.A. No. 1446/2022 With C.A. No. 1447/2022 With C.A. No. 1409/2022 With C.A. No. 1416/2022 With C.A. No. 1395/2022 With C.A. No. 1407/2022 With C.A. No. 1406/2022 With C.A. No. 1398/2022 With C.A. No. 1401/2022 With C.A. No. 1391/2022 With C.A. No. 1403/2022 With C.A. No. 1393/2022 With C.A. No. 1410/2022 With C.A. No. 1405/2022 With C.A. No. 1397/2022 With C.A. No. 1404/2022 With C.A. No. 1400/2022 With C.A. No. 1396/2022 With C.A. No. 1408/2022 With C.A. No. 1399/2022 And With C.A. No. 1392/2022 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J A Introduction ...........................................................................................................5 B Submissions .......................................................................................................12 B.1 Union of India ...............................................................................................12 B.2 Respondent-assessees................................................................................28 C Constitutional Architecture of GST .....................................................................52 C. 1 Legislative History of the Constitution Amendment Act 2016.......................56 C.2 The nature of the recommendations of the GST Council .............................75 D Analysis ..............................................................................................................92 D.1 Statutory Provisions and Scheme of the IGST Act.......................................92 D.2 Do the impugned notifications suffer from excessive delegation? .............104 D.3 Charging Section: taxable person, taxable rate and manner of determining value ...................................................................................................................108 D.4 Taxable event: Is an ocean freight transaction for import of goods a valid category of supply of services under Section 5(3) of IGST Act? .........................114 D.4.(a) Do imported goods procured on a CIF basis constitute an inter-state supply or is it an extra-territorial tax?................................................................115 D.4.(b) Are importers service recipients under CIF contracts? .....................125 D.5 Applicability of Section 5(4) of IGST Act ....................................................135 D.6 Composite Supply and Issues of Double Taxation.....................................141 E Conclusion ........................................................................................................150 PART A A Introduction 1 The Union of India1 is in appeal against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 23 January 2020. The High Court allowed a petition instituted by the respondents under Article 226 for challenging the constitutionality of two notifications of the Central Government.

Result 29
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Cosmo Films Limited
Honourable Judges S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
Date of Judgment: 28 Apr 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 18
   
   
   

46. As there was no corresponding notification exempting the additional duties leviable under Sections 3 (7) and (9) CTA, exporters had to pay IGST and compensation cess and seek input tax credit as applicable under the GST Rules. Import under AA, however, continued to be exempt from payment of basic customs duty and additional customs duty specified in subsections (1), (3) and (5) of section 3 of the CTA, education cess, anti-dumping duty, safeguard duty and transition product specific safeguard duty, wherever applicable. 47. Since IGST and compensation cess was levied against AAs, they were apparently challenged before the Delhi High Court in several petitions, wherein interim relief was granted. Because of the initial problems relating to GST, the committed refund of IGST got delayed, resulting in blocking of working capital for many businesses. The Union then issued an amending notification dated 13- 10-2017 in exercise of powers under Section 25 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (Notification 79/2017 - dated 13.10.2017) inter alia amending the opening paragraph of Notification 18 / 2015 (dated 1.4.2015) whereby goods imported into India were exempted from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon, specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and from the whole of the additional duty leviable thereon under sub-sections (1), (3) and (5) of Section 3, IGST leviable thereon under sub-section (7) of section 3 and compensation cess leviable under sub-section (9) of section 3. The amending notification also introduced a proviso in condition (viii), after the proviso which reads thus: "Provided further that notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove for the said authorisations where the exemption from integrated tax and the goods and services tax compensation cess leviable thereon under sub-section (7) and sub-section (9) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, has been availed, the export obligation shall be fulfilled by physical exports only." The said notification also inserted condition (xii) which reads thus: "(xii) that the exemption from integrated tax and the goods and services tax compensation cess leviable thereon under sub-section (7) and sub- section (9) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act shall be subject to pre- import condition." 48. Thus, exemption from levy of IGST under Section 3 (7) and compensation cess leviable under Section 3 (9) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 were subject to the conditions that the export obligation shall be fulfilled by physical exports only and shall also be subject to ‘pre-import condition’. Together with the amendment of the exemption notification, by Notification No. 33/2015-2020 (dated 13-10- 2017), paragraph 4.14 of the FTP was also amended to read as follows: "4.14: Details of Duties exempted.

Result 30
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India Through Its ... vs Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Honourable Judges A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, C.T. Ravikumar
Date of Judgment: 28 Oct 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 15
   
   
   

The appellant cannot take advantage of its own failure of not being able to operationalize Forms GSTR­2 and GSTR­3 right at the inception when the provisions of the Act came into force. It is unfair and inequitable that failure of the department should benefit the department by forcing the registered person to discharge OTL. On the other hand, the assessees were given to understand right from 2015 that the system of return filing will be automated under GST. The entire industry and trade accordingly contemplated system changes based on these declarations i.e., return filing and taking/utilizing credit will be on the basis of auto­populated returns. Notably, three days before the implementation of GST, even though Sections 37, 38, 39, 42 and 43 were notified and were brought into force, the appellant issued Notification No. 10/2017 ­ Central Tax dated 28.06.2017 stating that the automated system will not be implemented and a summary manual return under Section 61(5) in Form GSTR­3B, which is “in lieu of” Form GSTR­3 has to be filed. The parameters specified in Form GSTR­3 were substituted in Form GSTR­3B. This arrangement was soon altered by issuing Notification No. 17/2017­Central Tax dated 27.07.2017, thereby amending Rule 61(5) retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017, omitting the words “in lieu of” and expressly mentioning that Form GSTR­3B was introduced only till the period Sections 37 and 38 were not in operation. Further, Form GSTR­3B was only a stop­gap arrangement and while filing of Form GSTR­2 is operationalized, Form GSTR­3 of the preceding tax periods will be automatically generated and filled after acceptance/rejection contemplated under Sections 37 and 38 of the 2017 Act. In October 2019, by amending Rule 61(5) retrospectively making the return filed in Form GSTR­3B final return, the automated system contemplated under Sections 37 to 39 was formally done away with in the teeth of statutory mandate. 28. According to respondent No. 1, it is only after operationalization of GSTR­2A in September, 2018 that complete data for July to September 2017 became available to it and on the basis of which it wanted to revise the return filed for that period. It was possible to do so in terms of Circular No. 7/7/2017 dated 01.09.2017, which predicated that the details furnished in Form GSTR­3B will be corrected based on Forms GSTR­1 and GSTR­2 and will be auto­populated and will reflect in Form GSTR­3 in that particular month. However, that was done away with by introducing impugned Circular No. 26/26/2017­GST dated 29.12.2017. The arrangement specified in the impugned Circular was against the spirit of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Hence, the High Court justly recorded that finding.

Relevant High Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024

Result 1
Gujarat High Court
Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat
Honourable Judges J.B.Pardiwala
Date of Judgment: 24 February 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
   
   
   

9. In light of the aforesaid provisions, we notice that registration of any business entity under the GST Law implies obtaining a unique number from the concerned tax authorities for the purpose of collecting tax on behalf of the government and to avail Input tax credit for the taxes on his inward supplies. Without registration, a person can neither collect tax from his customers nor claim any input tax credit of tax paid by him. It appears that registration in GST is PAN based and State specific. Thus, supplier has to get himself register in each of such State or Union territory from where he effects supply. The Act empowers proper officer and registration granted under GST can be cancelled for specified reasons. The cancellation can either be initiated by the department on their own motion or the registered person can apply for cancellation of their registration. 9.1 From the bare reading of the rules, 2017 along with statutory provision, the reasons for cancellation can be curled out as under : a) a person registered under any of the existing laws, but who is not liable to be registered under the GST Act; b) the business has been discontinued, transferred fully for any reason including death of the proprietor, amalgamated with other legal entity, demerged or otherwise 11 disposed of; C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 c) there is any change in the constitution of the business; d) the taxable person (other than the person who has voluntarily taken registration under sub-section (3) of section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017) is no longer liable to be registered; e) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder; f) a person paying tax under Composition levy has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; g) any registered person, other than a person paying tax under Composition levy has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; h) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-section (3) of section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; i) registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Result 2
Gujarat High Court
Shri Nirav Tarkas Liquidator Of M/S ... vs Office Of The Chief Commissioner
Honourable Judges Sonia Gokani, Rajendra M. Sareen
Date of Judgment: 7 October 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 10
   
   
   

It is ultimately a notification in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 10. This Court notices that the Circular No. 138/08/2020- GST dated 06.05.2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has made certain clarifications in respect of the challenges faced by the registered persons in implementation of provisions of the GST Laws, since the IRPs/RPs were facing difficulties in obtaining the registration during the period of lock-down. The Court makes a note of the fact that the period has been extended upto 30.06.2020, instead of insisting for the registration within 30 days from the appointment of the IRP/RP. 10.1. There are other clarifications which are not necessary to be discussed at this stage. Suffice to note that all contentions raised by the respondent authority are absolutely technical C/SCA/6714/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2021 and having no substance what so ever. The petitioner as an Official Liquidator has fulfilled all the demands of furnishing the necessary documents and testimonials and therefore, if there were more such requirement, the same could have been asked for, however, to deny merely on the ground of his not having specified of his being a liquidator or for that matter, a very negligible and minor aspect, deserves the disapproval of the Court. It is not to be forgotten by the respondent authority that the registration under the GST Act is a must for the liquidator to operate and fulfill the obligations in his capacity as a liquidator as required under the statute. It is the NCLT which has appointed the liquidator who could not have been asked to run from the post to pillar and approached this Court by adopting highly technical and deprecated complexity in awarding the GST Registration Number. 10.2. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner, wherever there is a requirement, Section 25 requires the proper officer to register such person in such a manner as may be prescribed, if he is otherwise liable to be registered. Thus, in case of any delay in obtaining the registration, Section 25(8) obligates the proper officer to proceed to register such person.

Result 3
Orissa High Court
M/S. Durga Raman Patnaik vs Additional Commissioner
Date of Judgment: 13 October 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

Upon such compliance, the petitioner can be directed to make application under Section 30 for revocation of cancellation of registration. :: 7 :: 3. It is stated at the Bar that many cases of this nature has been rejected by the Appellate Authority by passing a common order, as a consequence of which taxpayers even though are ready to deposit tax, interest and penalty with late fee and also furnish return(s), they are deprived of availing such advantage as is bestowed in the aforementioned notifications. Since the Bar sought to address the issue, this Court asked Sri Rudra Prasad Kar, Advocate to render assistance in this regard. 3.1. Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Advocate has placed the following suggestions by way of short note dated 25.08.2022: "GST law being, a New Act, assessees are facing the difficulties in switching to procedural compliance electronically through internet on the GST Web-Portal. Considering the hardship faced by the assessees and more specifically due to COVID-19 pandemic, various amnesty schemes were introduced by the Government of India to ease the technical and procedural complicacies faced by the assessees. The provisions of the GST enactments and the rules made thereunder, read with various clarifications issued by the Central Government, pursuant to the decision of the GST Council and the Notification issued thereunder, also makes it clear that the intention is only to facilitate business and not to debar the assessees from coming back into GST fold. The purpose of GST registration is only to ensure that just taxes get collected on supplies of goods or services or both and is paid to the exchequer. Keeping these petitioners outside the bounds of the GST regime is a self- defeating move. It will be in the interest of the State to allow restoration of the Registration Certificate and facilitate business to grow. The provisions of the GST enactments cannot be interpreted so as to deny the right to carry on Trade and Commerce to a citizen. The constitutional guarantee is unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced regardless of the defect in the scheme of the GST enactments. The right to carry on trade or profession also cannot be curtailed.

Result 4
Orissa High Court
M/S. Durga Raman Patnaik vs Additional Commissioner
Date of Judgment: 13 October 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 15
   
   
   

Without registration, a person can neither collect tax from his customers nor claim any input tax credit of tax paid by him. It appears that registration in GST is PAN based and State specific. Thus, supplier has to get himself registered in each of such State or Union Territory from where he effects supply. The Act empowers proper officer and registration granted under GST can be cancelled for specified reasons. The cancellation can either be initiated by the department on their own motion or the registered person can apply for cancellation of his registration. 9.1 From the bare reading of the Rules, 2017 along with statutory provision, the reasons for cancellation can be culled out as under: :: 17 :: a) a person registered under any of the existing laws, but who is not liable to be registered under the GST Act; b) the business has been discontinued, transferred fully for any reason including death of the proprietor, amalgamated with other legal entity, demerged or otherwise disposed of; c) there is any change in the constitution of the business; d) the taxable person (other than the person who has voluntarily taken registration under sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017) is no longer liable to be registered; e) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder; f) a person paying tax under composition levy has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; g) any registered person, other than a person paying tax under composition levy has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; h) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-section (3) of Section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; i) registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. 9.2 The procedure for cancellation of registration can be summarized as under: i. A person already registered under any of the existing laws (Central excise, Service tax, VAT etc.), but who now is not liable to be registered under the GST Act has to submit an application electronically by 31st December 2017, in Form GST REG-29 at the common portal for the cancellation of registration :: 18 :: granted to him.

Result 5
Gauhati High Court
Karuna Deury vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
Honourable Judges Michael Zothankhuma
Date of Judgment: 12 February 2024
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
   
   
   

23. Persons Not Liable for Registration (1) The following persons shall not be liable to registration, namely:- (a) any person engaged exclusively in the business of supplying goods or services or both that are not liable to tax or wholly exempt from tax under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act; (b) an agriculturist, to the extent of supply of produce out of cultivation of land. (2) The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify the category of persons who may be exempted from obtaining registration under this Act." 13. Section 22 of the Central GST Act, 2017 provides that every supplier shall be registered under this Act in the State or Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakhs rupees. Page No.# 8/11 Provided that where such person makes taxable supplies of goods or services or both from any of the special category States, he shall be liable to be registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds ten lakhs rupees. Section 23 provides the class of persons, who are not liable for registration under the Central GST Act, 2017. 14. As Assam is a special category State under the Central GST Act, 2017, the petitioner and the respondent No.7 are required to submit valid GST Certificates, as their bid value is above 10 lakh rupees. 15. The only question that remains is whether the respondent No.7 had submitted a valid GST Certificate along with his bid/quotation. As stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the petitioner had apparently submitted a valid GST Certificate. The Communication dated 26.07.2023 issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam only reflects the fact that the GST Certificate of the respondent No.7, i.e., GSTIN: 18AVRPB0604M1ZI was cancelled on 09.02.2021 with effect from 19.02.2021. There is nothing with regard to when the respondent No.7's GST Certificate was revalidated.

Result 6
Orissa High Court
M/S. Durga Raman Patnaik vs Additional Commissioner
Date of Judgment: 13 October 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 14
   
   
   

7. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works Vrs. State of Gujarat & 2 Other(s), R/Special Civil Application No. 18860 of 2021, vide Judgment dated 24.02.2022 discussed the provisions enshrined for registration with reference to the rules framed thereunder in the following manner: "8.1 Scheme of the Act: *** The related provisions for certificate of registration and its cancellation, under the said Act are as under: i. Section 2(107) defines the term "taxable person" means a person who is registered or liable to be registered under Section 22 or Section 24. ii. Chapter VI pertains to Registration. Section 22 provides for person liable for registration. Section 23 pertains to person who shall not be liable for registration whereas Section 24 provides for compulsory registration in certain cases specified therein. Section 25 provides application to be made within period of thirty days and prescribes procedure to be followed for registration. Section 26 provides deemed registration. :: 16 :: iii. The Gujarat Goods and service Rules, 2017 has come into effect from 22nd June, 2017. Chapter III deals with subject "Registration". Rule 8 provides for Application for registration. Rule 10 provides for Issue of registration certificate. Rule 16 provides for suo motu registration. iv. Section 29 confers power upon the proper officer for cancellation of Registration. Section 30 provides for revocation of cancellation of registration. Against the aforesaid substantive provisions prescribed under the Act, the corresponding rules framed thereunder are also required to be looked into. v. Rule 20 provides for filing of application for cancellation of registration by the dealer. Rule 21 provides for Registration to be cancelled by the proper officer in certain cases. Rule 22 deals for procedure to be adhered to while proceeding for with cancellation of registration. Rule 23 deals with Revocation of cancellation of registration. 9. In light of the aforesaid provisions, we notice that registration of any business entity under the GST Law implies obtaining a unique number from the concerned tax authorities for the purpose of collecting tax on behalf of the Government and to avail input tax credit for the taxes on his inward supplies.

Result 7
Gujarat High Court
Arsh Traders Through Proprietor Aslam ... vs Commercial Tax Officer, Ghatak 65, ...
Honourable Judges Sonia Gokani
Date of Judgment: 17 February 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

9.1 From the bare reading of the rules, 2017 along with statutory provision, the reasons for cancellation can be curled out as under : a) a person registered under any of the existing laws, but who is not liable to be registered under the GST Act; b) the business has been discontinued, transferred fully for any reason including death of the proprietor, amalgamated with other legal entity, demerged or otherwise 11 disposed of; c) there is any change in the constitution of the business; d) the taxable person (other than the person who has voluntarily taken registration under sub- section (3) of section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017) is no longer liable to be registered; e) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder; f) a person paying tax under Composition levy has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; g) any registered person, other than a person paying tax under Composition levy has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; h) any person who has taken voluntary C/SCA/3224/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2023 registration under sub-section (3) of section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; i) registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. 9.2 The procedure for cancellation of registration can be summarized as under : i. A person already registered under any of the existing laws (Central excise, Service tax, VAT etc.), but who now is not liable to be registered under the GST Act has to submit an application electronically by 31st December 2017, in FORM GST REG-29 at the common portal for the cancellation of registration granted to him.

Result 8
Madras High Court
Varadarajulu Srinivasan vs The Deputy Commissioner (St)
Honourable Judges C.Saravanan
Date of Judgment: 1 February 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 11
   
   
   

Explanation.€“€“For the purposes of this section,€“€“ (i) the expression "aggregate turnover" shall include all supplies made by the taxable person, whether on his own account or made on behalf of all his principals; (ii) the supply of goods, after completion of job work, by a registered job worker shall be treated as the supply of goods by the principal referred to in section 143, and the value of such goods shall not be included in the aggregate turnover of the registered job worker; (iii) the expression "special category States" shall mean the States as specified in sub-clause (g) of clause (4) of article 279A of the Constitution. 164. As per Section 22(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, every person who, on the day immediately preceding the appointed day, was registered or held a license under an existing law, shall be liable to be registered under the Act with effect from the appointed day. 165. Section 25 of the respective GST enactment contemplates ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the procedure for registration. Section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017 reads as under: 25. (1) Every person who is liable to be registered under section 22 or section 24 shall apply for registration in every such State or Union territory in which he is so liable within thirty days from the date on which he becomes liable to registration, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that a casual taxable person or a non- resident taxable person shall apply for registration at least five days prior to the commencement of business. 166. Section 26 also deals with a situation for grant of deemed registration where registration number of unique identity number has been issued or rejected under the State /Union Territory Goods and Service Tax Acts, 2017. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 167. As far as cancellation or suspension of registration is concerned, Section 29 of the respective GST enactments deals with the same. Rule 22 respective of the respective GST Rules, 2017 implements the provisions of Section 29 of the GST enactment by prescribing procedure of cancellation.

Result 9
Madras High Court
Tvl.Ethiraj Catering Service vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Honourable Judges B.Pugalendhi
Date of Judgment: 21 December 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
   
   
   

On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith. ix. The respondents shall take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable changes in the architecture of the GST Web portal to allow these petitioners to file their returns and to pay the tax/penalty/fine. x. The above exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. xi. No cost. xii. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 10. The Central Goods and Service Act was enacted in the year 2017 with an object of levy and collection of tax on intra state supply of goods or services or both by the Central Government, it is not the interest of the government to curtail the right of the entrepreneurs like the petitioner. The petitioner must be allowed to continue his business and to contribute to the State's revenue, in the absence of GST Registration number a professional https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis cannot raise a bill, if the petitioner is denied a GST registration number, it affects his chances of getting employment or executing works, which ultimately affects his right to livelihood, embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution. 11.The income tax assesses are expected to pay advance tax quarterly at the rates prescribed under Section 211 of the Income Tax Act , 1961. For non payment of this advance tax will attract interest. Even for non payment this advance tax, there is no serious action taken against the assesses. The Income Tax Department is only sending reminders to the tax payers, by way of repeated e-mails, SMS and and through post. However in these cases, the capital punishment of cancellation of registration is made by sending a system generated e-mail which is in English to the traders, who are not having acquainted with English. These notices are not even generated in the regional languages and actions are taken. 12. The petitioner in this case is an industrial catering service provider. Most of the small scale entrepreneurs like carpenters, electricians, fabricators etc... are almost uneducated and they are not accustomed with handling of e-mails and other advance technologies.

Result 10
Gauhati High Court
Purbanchal Enterprise vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
Honourable Judges Manish Choudhury
Date of Judgment: 1 February 2024
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

6. It is discernible from a reading of the proviso to sub-rule [4] of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 that if a person who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29[2][c] of the CGST Act, 2017, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form i.e. Form GST REG-20. 7. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in a number of writ petitions, preferred by similarly situated persons, has passed orders for restoration of GST registration. In support of his submissions, he has referred to the orders passed in a number writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 6175/2022, W.P.[C] no. 576/2023, W.P.[C] no. 6930/2023, W.P[C] no. 6366/2023, etc. and has prayed for similar order. 8. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, CGST has not disputed the fact of passing orders by the benches of this Court in respect of similarly situated persons, whose GST registrations were cancelled on similar grounds. 9. The petitioner has stated that it carries out business works contracts. Under the GST regime, the petitioner was required to pay the necessary dues under the CGST Act or the SGST Act, as the case may be, or both. These statutory dues are required to be paid by all entities, who are registered under the GST regime. Such payments of statutory dues contribute towards the revenue collection by the Union. If the petitioner is not included within the GST regime, then any statutory dues that may be required to be deposited by the petitioner, will not be deposited and such a situation is in the interest of the revenue. Therefore, in order that the petitioner is required to comply with his statutory obligations of payment of taxes under the GST regime, it would be necessary for the departmental authorities to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of his cancellation of GST registration.

Result 11
Gauhati High Court
Purbanchal Enterprise vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
Honourable Judges Manish Choudhury
Date of Judgment: 1 February 2024
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

For ready reference, Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 is quoted herein below in its entirety :- Rule 22 : Cancellation of Registration [1] Where the proper officer has reasons to believe that the registration of a person is liable to be cancelled under Section 29, he shall issue a notice to such person in FORM GST REG-17, requiring him to show cause, within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of such notice, as to why his registration shall not be cancelled. [2] The reply to the show cause notice issued under sub-rule [1] shall be furnished in FORM REG-18 within the period specified in the said sub-rule. [3] Where a person who has submitted an application for cancellation of his registration is no longer liable to be registered or his registration is liable to be cancelled, the proper officer shall issue an order in FORM GST REG-19, within a period of thirty days from the date of application submitted under Rule 20 or, as the case may be, the date of the reply to the show cause issued under sub-rule [1], or under sub-rule [2A] of Rule 21A cancel the registration, with effect from a date to be determined by him and notify the taxable person, directing him to pay arrears of any tax, interest or penalty including the amount liable to be paid under sub- section [5] of Section 29. [4] Where the reply furnished under sub-rule [2] or in response to the notice issued under sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A is found to be satisfactory, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST REG-20 : Provided that where the person instead of replying to the notice served under sub-rule [1] for contravention of the provisions contained in Clause [b] or Clause [c] of sub-section [2] of section 29, furnishes all the pending returns and makes full payment of the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST REG-20. [5] The provisions of sub-rule [3] shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor, as if the application had been submitted by the proprietor himself.

Result 12
Gujarat High Court
Jainam Cables (India) Private Limited vs Union Of India
Honourable Judges J.B.Pardiwala, A.C. Rao
Date of Judgment: 23 December 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 47
   
   
   

" DISCUSSION 24. As we are looking into two important provisions of a new tax regime, we must look into the salient features of the GST. The salient features of the GST have been very exhaustively looked into and discussed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer, reported in (2019) 62 GSTR 207. GST - Introduction: 25. In a federal constitutional set up, coordination rather than subordination as the guiding spirit, the States and the Union as the constituents have demarcated spheres of legislation and governance. With Clearly delineated legislative fields, neither can trespass upon the other's legislative territory-the residuary powers lying with the Union, though. The division of powers is zealously guarded in no other sphere than fiscal. Taxation as the backbone of a welfare nation, which India is; the legislative fields are as distinct, yet interconnected, as the spinal segments do. 26. That said, 101st Constitutional Amendment is the epoch-making federal feat unparalleled in constitutional democracies-almost. It is, I may say, a constitutional coup de gracedelivered against the fiscal confusion compounded by conflicting taxation regimes. This amendment, perhaps, marks the crest of cooperative federalism. It has created even a constitutional institution-GST Council. 27. As constitutional democracies have gained experience, Utopian vision of justice has given way to utilitarian view. Material comfort or upliftment has become the hallmark of good governance. So economic analysis of law substitutes the notion of simple justice with that of economic efficiency and wealth maximisation. True, nations like France successfully embraced GST regimes in the 1950s. Even federal polities like Canada replaced MST (Manufacturer's Sales Tax) with GST (Goods and Services Tax) in the 1980s. India joined the fiscal reform bandwagon a little late. Tentative it was to begin with, but determined it is in this new federal fiscal path. 28. To put the concept in perspective, GST is a single tax on the supply of goods and services, right from the manufacturer to the consumer. Credits of input taxes paid at each stage will be available in the later stage of value addition. This process makes GST a tax on value addition at each stage.

Result 13
Gujarat High Court
Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat
Honourable Judges J.B.Pardiwala
Date of Judgment: 24 February 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

Thus, the resultant effect upon introduction of the CGST Act, 2017 and the GGST Act, 2017, was that the statutes which were imposing indirect taxes stood repealed and the only indirect taxes that prevailed are the Central GST and the State GST. The levy of goods and services tax on goods and services is being made by the Central Government C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 under the provisions as promulgated under the CGST Act, 2017 and the State Government levy goods and services tax under the provisions as promulgated under the State GST Act. The related provisions for certificate of registration and it's cancellation, under the said Act are as under :  Section 2(107) defines the term "taxable person" means a person who is registered or liable to be registered under Section 22 or Section 24.  Chapter VI pertains to Registration. Section 22 provides for person liable for registration. Section 23 pertains to person who shall not be liable for registration whereas section 24 provides for compulsory registration in certain cases specified therein. Section 25 provides application to be made within period of thirty days and prescribes procedure to be followed for registration. Section 26 provides deemed registration.  The Gujarat Goods and service Rules, 2017 has come into effect from 22nd June, 2017. Chapter III deals with subject "Registration". Rule 8 provides for Application for registration. Rule 10 provides for Issue of registration certificate. Rule 16 provides for Suo Moto registration.  Section 29 confers power upon the Proper Officer for cancellation of Registration. Section 30 provides for revocation of cancellation of registration. Against the aforesaid substantive provisions prescribed under the Act, the corresponding rules framed thereunder are also required to be looked into. Rule 20 provides for filing of application for cancellation of registration by the dealer. C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 Rule 21 provides for Registration to be cancelled by the proper officer in certain cases. Rule 22 deals for procedure to be adhered while proceeding for with Cancellation of Registration. Rule 23 deals with Revocation of cancellation of registration.

Result 14
Allahabad High Court
M/S Ratek Pheon Friction Technologies ... vs Principal Commissioner And 2 Others
Honourable Judges Naheed Ara Moonis, Saumitra Dayal Singh
Date of Judgment: 15 September 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 32
   
   
   

47. Though, no debate may be entertained by this Court as to the wisdom of the Parliament and its delegate and the merits of that method prescribed under the new indirect tax regime and though time allowance may be claimed by the respondents, to sort out the initial difficulties and issues and no challenge may arise to the new regime on that count, at the same time, the Courts cannot remain oblivious or indifferent, either to the plight of the "registered persons"/taxpayers who provide the fuel to run that gigantic machinery of the State or to the purpose and object of the whole exercise. 48. As we have examined above, it was never the object of the Parliament to defeat the CENVAT or ITC arising under the pre-existing/repealed indirect tax laws. In fact, the CGST Act and the UPGST Act sought to protect and make available to the "registered persons", the benefit of CENVAT and ITC earned under the pre-existing laws. Mainly, the Parliament enacted two pre-conditions to avail that CENVAT and ITC by insisting, only such CENVAT and ITC be allowed to be recorded in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the "registered persons", with respect to which a return may have been filed by that person under the pre-existing laws, for period ending 30.06.2017 or by production of Tax Invoice of input or stocks etc. The second stipulation is, such figures must be translated and submitted electronically on the GST Portal through the Form GST TRAN-1/TRAN-2, within the prescribed time. As to the prescribed manner, there is no quarrel between the parties. The petitioners do not contend, that the details required to be filled up in the Form were impossible or difficult to be filled up. The only challenge they raise is based on their inability to submit electronically that data on the GST Portal, within time granted. 49. Undisputedly, the GST Portal was set up and was run and managed by Government corporation known as the GST Network. There was no alternative method available to submit electronically the Form GST TRAN-1/TRAN-2. Therefore, unless the said GST Portal was up and running without any errors, the time limit that had been set by the Act and the Rules and the orders and notifications issued thereunder, would remain directory or elastic, within reasonable limits.

Result 15
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Parveez Ahmad Baba vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others
Honourable Judges Sanjeev Kumar
Date of Judgment: 13 September 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 15
   
   
   

The licensing authority would not be in a position to grant license under the Act with respect to the premises, ownership and possession whereof is claimed by the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 nor it would be possible for the licensing authority to name any of them to be the Food Business Operator i.e. the person responsible to carry on the food business and comply with the terms and conditions of the license. The decision of the designated authority under the Act not to renew the license in favour of respondent No.5 is, thus, completely in consonance with law. The petitioner and respondent No.5 are required to settle their dispute amicably or through the intervention of Court. Partition between two brothers appears to be a viable solution of the problem which the petitioner and respondent No.5 are facing in respect of running the business of Samci Restaurant. 22) Similarly, on the analogy of what is stated above, the petitioner or for that matter respondent No.5 shall not be entitled to registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST). Chapter-VI of the GST deals with registration. In terms of Section 22 of the GST, every supplier shall be liable to be registered under the GST Act in the State or Union Territory from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakh rupees. The term "supplier" is defined under Section 2(105), which reads as under:- "Supplier" in relation to any goods or services or both, shall mean the person supplying the said goods or services or both and shall include an agent acting as such on behalf of such supplier in relation to goods or services or both supplied" There is not even an iota of doubt that person running a restaurant and selling the goods and providing restaurant services would be a "Supplier€Ÿ within the meaning of term defined under Section 2(105) of GST Act and, therefore, would require registration under the Act, if aggregate turn over in a financial year exceeds rupees twenty lakh. 23) Unless a person is permitted to run the business in accordance with law and legitimately attains a turnover of more than rupees twenty lakh, he cannot be registered under the GST Act. The turnover must be from a business, which is legitimately run by the supplier.

Result 16
Gujarat High Court
Arsh Traders Through Proprietor Aslam ... vs Commercial Tax Officer, Ghatak 65, ...
Honourable Judges Sonia Gokani
Date of Judgment: 17 February 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
   
   
   

The bogus billing in case of the present petitioner and others, has already denied the cancellation of registration. 5.3 We could notice that the show cause notice, which has been issued, is quite cryptic. This Court in Special Civil Application 18860 of 2021 (2022) 137 Taxmann.com 332 (Gujarat) - Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works versus State of Gujarat & Ors., has at length decided this issue. The relevant observations are made in Para 9 onwards, which are as follows : "9. In light of the aforesaid provisions, we notice that registration of any business entity under the GST Law implies obtaining a unique number from the concerned tax authorities for the purpose of collecting tax on behalf of the government and to avail Input tax credit for the taxes on his inward supplies. Without registration, a person can neither collect tax from his customers nor claim any input tax credit of tax paid by him. It appears that registration in GST is PAN based and State specific. Thus, supplier has to get himself register in each of such State or Union territory from where he effects supply. The Act empowers proper officer and registration granted under GST can be C/SCA/3224/2022 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2023 cancelled for specified reasons. The cancellation can either be initiated by the department on their own motion or the registered person can apply for cancellation of their registration.

Result 17
Gujarat High Court
Jainam Cables (India) Private Limited vs Union Of India
Honourable Judges J.B.Pardiwala, A.C. Rao
Date of Judgment: 23 December 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 50
   
   
   

GST to be levied by the Centre is called Central GST(CGST) and that to be levied by the States called State GST (SGST). (iv) An Integrated GST (IGST) is levied on inter-state supply (including stock transfers) of goods or services. This shall be levied and collected by the Government of India, and such tax shall be apportioned between the Union and the States in the manner as may be provided by Parliament by Law on the recommendation of the GST Council. (v) Import of goods or services is treated as inter-state supplies and is subject to IGST, besides the applicable customs duties. (vi) CGST, SGST & IGST are levied at rates to be mutually agreed upon by the Centre and the States. The rates would be notified on the recommendation of the GST Council. To begin with, the GST Council has decided that GST would be levied at four rates viz. 5%, 12%, 18% and 28%. The schedule or list of items that would fall under each slab has been worked out. Besides these rates, a cess would be imposed on "demerit" goods to raise resources for compensating States as States may lose revenue owing to implementing GST. (vii) GST will apply to all goods and services except Alcohol for human consumption. (viii) GST on five specified petroleum products (Crude, Petrol, Diesel, ATF & Natural Gas) be applicable from a date to be recommended by the GSTC. (ix) Tobacco and tobacco products would be subject to GST. Besides, the Centre will have the power to levy Central Excise duty on these products. (x) A common threshold exemption would apply to both CGST and SGST. Taxpayers with an annual turnover not exceeding Rs.20 lakh (Rs.10 Lakh for special category States) would be exempted from GST. For small taxpayers with an aggregate turnover in a financial year up to 50 lakhs, a composition scheme is available. Under the scheme, a taxpayer shall pay tax as a percentage of his turnover in a State during the year without the benefit of Input Tax Credit. This scheme will be optional. (xi) The list of exempted goods and services would be kept to a minimum, and it would be harmonized for the Centre and the States and across States as far as possible. (xii) Exports would be zero-rated supplies.

Result 18
Gauhati High Court
Purbanchal Enterprise vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
Honourable Judges Manish Choudhury
Date of Judgment: 1 February 2024
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
   
   
   

Date : 01-02-2024 Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, CGST for all the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a partnership firm having its place of business at Moran, District - Sivasagar and it carries out business of works contract. For the purpose of carrying out its business, the petitioner got itself registered under the Goods and Services Tax [GST] Act, 2017 with Registration no. 18AAUFP7080R1ZZ. 2.1. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 26.11.2021 asking him to show cause as to why the registration certificate issued under the Goods and Services Tax [GST] Act, 2017 in his favour should not be cancelled due to non-furnishing of returns in compliance of the provisions of Section 29[2][c] of the GST Act, 2017 for a continuous period of 6 [six] or more months. The petitioner was thereby, directed to furnish his reply within a period of 7 [seven] working days from the date of service of the said show cause notice and was also asked to appear in person before the authority issuing the show cause notice on 30.11.2021. Though the petitioner did not submit any reply in response to the show cause notice dated 26.11.2021, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the authority issuing the show cause notice cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner by an order dated 15.12.2021 in Form GST REG-19 w.e.f. 15.12.2021, after recording that he had examined the petitioner's reply dated 08.12.2021 submitted response to the show cause notice dated 26.11.2021. 3. Section 39[1] of the GST Act, 2017 inter alia requires a registered person to furnish a return for every calendar month or part thereof, electronically, of inward and outward supplies of goods or services or both, input tax credit availed, tax payable, tax paid and such other particulars, in such form and manner, and within such time, as may be prescribed. 4. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that during the concerned period, the petitioner could not submit the returns required to be submitted under Section 39[1] of the CGST Act for a period of more than 6 [six] months due to reasons beyond his control, more particularly, due to onset and continuance of Covid-19 Pandemic.

Result 19
Gujarat High Court
Shri Nirav Tarkas Liquidator Of M/S ... vs Office Of The Chief Commissioner
Honourable Judges Sonia Gokani, Rajendra M. Sareen
Date of Judgment: 7 October 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

2.7. On 02.12.2020, an application had been made being Application No. 242000217737TRN before the respondent for grant of registration under the GST Act to enable him to collect GST on sale of assets. The respondent sought various clarifications about the details of authorized signatory and principal place of business on 03.12.2020. The petitioner complied with the notice and supplied the additional information, however, vide communication dated 11.12.2020, C/SCA/6714/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2021 the respondent rejected the application for grant of GST registration on the ground that he did not apply in accordance with the Notification No. 11/2020 - Central Tax [G.S.R. 194(E)/F. NO. 20/06/03/2020-GST dated 21.03.2020 amended by Notification No. 39/2020-CENTRALTAX [G.S.R. 273(E)/F.NO.CBEC-20/06/04/2020-GST] dated 05.05.2020. 2.8. According to the petitioner, the respondent appreciated the Notification No. 39/2020 dated 05.05.2020 under the process which deals with the registration by Resolution Professionals or Interim Resolution Professionals during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution period. This notification do not obligate the liquidator of the company undergoing liquidation process to make an application for registration within one month or before 30.06.2020. 2.9. An appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority on 15.12.2020. On various occasions, the petitioner visited the office of the respondent to resolve the issue and obtain the GST registration to carry out the work of liquidation which is a time bound process as the period of liquidation was coming to an end. 2.10. The petitioner on 27.01.2021 while visiting the office of the respondent, produced the IBBI Circular No. IP- C/SCA/6714/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2021 15011/1/2019-IBBI dated 07.03.2019 which categorically states that the IRP/RP/Liquidator is an officer of the Court.

Result 20
Bombay High Court
Nelco Limited vs The Union Of India Through Revenue ...
Honourable Judges Nitin Jamdar, M.S. Karnik
Date of Judgment: 20 March 2020
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
   
   
   

- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Taken up for final disposal. 3 WP 6998.2018 final.doc 2. The Petitioner - Nelco Limited is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It supplies and undertakes various network-related services. Respondent No.1 is the Union of India. Respondent No.2 is the Central Board of Indirect Taxes. Respondent No.3 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.4 is the Goods and Services Tax Council. Respondent No.5 is an officer exercising powers under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Respondent No.6 is a company which operates the online portal known as GSTN. Respondent No.7 is the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the Petitioner. 3. The Goods and Services Act was brought into force from 1 July 2017. This tax replaced and subsumed various indirect taxes in India. For the transition between the old and new regimes, provisions have been made under the Act. Goods and Services Tax Act provides for utilization of Input Tax Credit accumulated under the earlier tax laws upon certain conditions. The Goods and Services Tax Rules framed under the Act provides for filing of a form known as GST TRAN-1 for availing of such input tax credit. The Rules provide for a time limit within which the TRAN-1 Form has to be filed. This time limit is the subject of debate in this Petition. 4. Goods and Service Tax is levied on the supply of goods 4 WP 6998.2018 final.doc and services. It is a destination-based consumption tax. The GST has introduced a unique concept where both, the Central and the State, levy taxes on a joint base. The GST levied by the State Governments is called a State GST, in short SGST. GST levied by the Central Government is called a Central GST, that is the CGST. Regarding Inter-State supply, the levy is called Integrated GST, the IGST. The GST has replaced various taxes collected by the Central and the State. CGST has subsumed Central Excise Duty, Additional Excise Duty, Service Tax, Additional Customs Duty, Special Additional Duty of Customs, Excise Duty on Medicinal & Toilet Preparations. SGST has subsumed Sales Tax, Value Added Tax, Entertainment Tax, Central Sales Tax, Octroi &, Entry Tax, Purchase Tax, Luxury Tax, Taxes on Lottery, Betting & Gambling. A Goods and Services Tax Council is established.

Result 21
Madras High Court
Varadarajulu Srinivasan vs The Deputy Commissioner (St)
Honourable Judges C.Saravanan
Date of Judgment: 1 February 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 32
   
   
   

Relevant portion of the said Notification reads as under:- (ii) after the third proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely: €“ "Provided also that the total amount of late fee payable for a tax period, under section 47 of the said Act shall stand waived which is in excess of an amount of two hundred and fifty rupees for the registered person who failed to furnish the return in FORM GSTR- 3B for the months of July, 2017 to January, 2020, by the due date but furnishes the said return between the period from 01st day of July, 2020 to 30th day of September, 2020: Provided also that where the total amount of central tax payable in the said return is nil, the total ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis amount of late fee payable for a tax period, under section 47 of the said Act shall stand waived for the registered person who failed to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the months of July, 2017 to January, 2020, by the due date but furnishes the said return between the period from 01st day of July, 2020 to 30th day of September, 2020.". 208. The provisions of the GST Enactments and the Rules made there under read with various clarifications issued by the Central Government pursuant to the decision of the GST Council and the Notification issued thereunder the respective enactments also make it clear, intention is to only facilitate and not to debar and de-recognised assesses from coming back into the GST fold. 209. Thus, the intention of the Government has been to allow the persons like the petitioners to file a fresh application and to process the application for revocation of the cancellation of registration by the officers. 210. In my view, no useful purpose will be served by keeping these petitioners out of the bounds of GST regime under the respective GST enactments other than to allow further leakage of the revenue and to isolate these petitioners from the main stream contrary to the objects of the respective GST enactments. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 211. The purpose of GST registration is only to ensure just tax gets collected on supplies of goods or service or both and is paid to the exchequer. Keeping these petitioners outside the bounds of the GST regime is a self defeating move as no tax will get paid on the supplies of these petitioners.

Result 22
Allahabad High Court
M/S Ratek Pheon Friction Technologies ... vs Principal Commissioner And 2 Others
Honourable Judges Naheed Ara Moonis, Saumitra Dayal Singh
Date of Judgment: 15 September 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
   
   
   

11. In the first place, that difficulty arose on account of the switch over required to be made from the plural indirect tax regime (including Central Excise, Service Tax and VAT laws) to the singular GST regime. Second, difficulty arose on account of only one method provided to migrate and merge from the old/plural indirect tax regimes to the new/singular GST regime. While doing so, the executive authorities acted in a manner that was unmindful of the inherent difficulties and challenges faced by the vital stake holders i.e., the "registered persons"/taxpayers and tax professionals and tax authorities. Third all such "registered persons"/taxpayers and tax professionals had not migrated to online or digitized platform, before 30.06.2017. Fourth, the newly devised GST Portal was hurriedly activated, leading to multiple teething as also genuine technical and other difficulties faced by all including the CGST & UPGST authorities. Since the existence of such technical and other difficulties and glitches is admitted or indisputably established, no further burden exists on the individual "registered person"/taxpayer/petitioner to establish the extent of difficulty faced by each such person or to establish strict proof that the Form GST TRAN-1 and/or TRAN-2 could not be submitted or revised or re-revised electronically, for reason of that difficulty. 12. Shri Shubham Agarwal (in Writ Tax No. 477 of 2021) has placed reliance on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in R.R. Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, GST, Delhi North & Anr., WP (C) No. 4143/2020, decided on 27.05.2021 wherein, following its earlier decision in Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9250, the Delhi High Court held - inadvertent and genuine mistakes in filling up of credit in Form GST TRAN-1 should not preclude tax payers from having their claims examined in accordance with law. That Court further opined, non-filling of Part VII-B of Table no. 7(a) and 7(d) of Form GST TRAN-1 could not impair the rights of the assessee to claim transition ITC. It further recognized - at the relevant time, the GSTN system was in a trial-and-error phase and that from the beginning, the GST Network threw up difficulties in filling up returns etc., on the GST Portal.

Result 23
Allahabad High Court
M/S Ansari Construction vs Additional Commissioner Central Goods ...
Honourable Judges Pankaj Bhatia
Date of Judgment: 24 November 2020
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

The exercise of powers under Section 30 are governed by Rule 23 of the U.P. GST Rules, 2017 which is as under: "23. Revocation of cancellation of registration.- (1) A registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion, may submit an application for revocation of cancellation of registration, in FORM GST REG-21, to such proper officer, within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order of cancellation of registration at the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner: Provided that no application for revocation shall be filed, if the registration has been cancelled for the failure of the registered person to furnish returns, unless such returns are furnished and any amount due as tax, in terms of such returns, has been paid along with any amount payable towards interest, penalty and late fee in respect of the said returns. (2) (a) Where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that there are sufficient grounds for revocation of cancellation of registration, he shall revoke the cancellation of registration by an order in FORM GST REG-22 within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the application and communicate the same to the applicant. (b) The proper officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, under circumstances other than those specified in clause (a), by an order in FORM GST REG-05, reject the application for revocation of cancellation of registration and communicate the same to the applicant. (3) The proper officer shall, before passing the order referred to in clause (b) of sub-rule (2), issue a notice in FORM GST REG-23 requiring the applicant to show cause as to why the application submitted for revocation under sub-rule (1) should not be rejected and the applicant shall furnish the reply within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of the notice in FORM GST REG-24. (4) Upon receipt of the information or clarification in FORM GST REG-24, the proper officer shall proceed to dispose of the application in the manner specified in sub-rule (2) within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of such information or clarification from the applicant."

Result 24
Madras High Court
Varadarajulu Srinivasan vs The Deputy Commissioner (St)
Honourable Judges C.Saravanan
Date of Judgment: 1 February 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 21
   
   
   

Thus, Section 30 of the GST Acts, came into force with effect from 1st day of January, 2021. The said Notification reads as under:- Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No 92/2020-Central Tax New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2020 S.O. ...... (E).€” In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Finance Act, 2020 (12 of 2020) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st day of January, 2021, as the date on which the provisions of sections 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127 and 131 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of the said Act shall come into force. [F.No. CBEC-20/06/04/2020-GST] 193. Parallel amendments were made to Rule 23 of the respective GST Rules and FORM GST REG-21 was amended vide Notification No.15/2021-Central Tax, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 18.05.2021. Rule 23 (Revocation of Cancellation of Registration) of the respective GST Rules reads as under:- Rule 23 - Revocation of Cancellation of Registration 1) A registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion, may submit an application for revocation of cancellation of registration, in FORM GST REG-21, to such proper officer, within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order of cancellation of registration [or within such time period as extended by the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, in exercise of the powers provided under the proviso to sub- section (1) of section 30,] at the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner: Provided that no application for revocation shall be filed, if the registration has been cancelled for the failure of the registered person to furnish returns, unless such returns are furnished and any amount due as tax, in terms of such returns, has been paid along with any amount payable towards interest, penalty and late fee in respect of the said returns. [Provided further that all returns due for the period ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis from the date of the order of cancellation of registration till the date of the order of revocation of cancellation of registration shall be furnished by the said person within a period of thirty days from the date of order of revocation of cancellation of registration.

Result 25
Madras High Court
Varadarajulu Srinivasan vs The Deputy Commissioner (St)
Honourable Judges C.Saravanan
Date of Judgment: 1 February 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 16
   
   
   

Provided that the application for (3) Where a person who has revocation of cancellation of submitted an application for registration shall not be rejected cancellation of his registration is unless the applicant has been given no longer liable to be registered or an opportunity of being heard. his registration is liable to be cancelled, the proper officer shall (3) The revocation of cancellation of issue an order in FORM GST REG- registration under the State Goods 19, within a period of thirty days and Services Tax Act or the Union from the date of application Territory Goods and Services Tax submitted under [sub-rule (1) of] Act, as the case may be, shall be 16 rule 20 or, as the case may be, deemed to be a revocation of the date of the reply to the show cancellation of registration under this cause issued under sub-rule (1), Act. cancel the registration, with effect ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Section 30 of the GST Act Rule 22 of the GST Rules, 2017 from a date to be determined by him and notify the taxable person, directing him to pay arrears of any tax, interest or penalty including the amount liable to be paid under sub-section (5) of section 29. (4) Where the reply furnished under sub-rule (2) is found to be satisfactory, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST REG €“20: [Provided that where the person instead of replying to the notice served under sub-rule (1) for contravention of the provisions contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 29, furnishes all the pending returns and makes full payment of the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer shall drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM GST-REG 20] 17 (5) The provisions of sub-rule (3) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor, as if the application had been submitted by the proprietor himself. 177. An alternate remedy is also available in the order of cancellation by way of appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments which option has been exercised by some of the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis writ petitioners but beyond the period of limitation.

Result 26
Uttarakhand High Court
Bhupendra Singh vs State Tax Officer
Honourable Judges Ravindra Maithani
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
   
   
   

The challenge is made to a show cause notice for cancellation of GST Registration dated 06.08.2022 as well as the order dated 23.08.2022, by which, the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner runs a proprietorship firm under the name and style of M/S Bhaiji and Company as a stockiest of RBM, Reta, Bajri, etc. having a place of business. He is registered under The Uttarakhand/The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the Act"), with registration No. 05AUYPS2644A1ZG. 4. On 06.08.2022, a notice was issued to the petitioner on the GST portal. It is the case of the petitioner that the notice was vague. It does not indicate, as to whom the petitioner should meet? It required the petitioner to appear before someone on 19.08.2022, which subsequently was declared as holiday, but the petitioner was never given any opportunity or any other notice to appear on any other day. Subsequently, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 23.08.2022 without affording him any opportunity of hearing. 5. It is the case of the respondent that the declared premises of the petitioner was inspected by the competent authority on 19.07.2022. Prior to it, on multiple occasions, on various dates, the petitioner was tried to be contacted through telephone so as to inform him about inspection of his premises, but he never picked up the phone; he never returned the phone call. It is also the case of the respondent that, the petitioner was issued a notice dated 06.08.2022, as to why the GST registration may not be cancelled and the petitioner was required to appear on 19.08.2022. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is gross violation of the provisions of the Act in the instant case. He would refer to Rule 25 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 ("the Rules") to argue that, in fact, inspection of the premises cannot be done in the absence of the petitioner. Not only this, it is submitted that the inspection report was required to be uploaded on the portal, which has never been done by the respondents.

Result 27
Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Jay Bee Industries vs Union Of India And Others
Honourable Judges Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Date of Judgment: 16 November 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
   
   
   

With the introduction of the GST with effect from 01.07.2017 and subsuming of various taxes into GST, the petitioner was made to migrate into GST and was allotted GST No.02AACFJ9239Q2ZW and the petitioner has held various stocks of duty/tax paid raw materials as well as those contained in the semi-finished goods and finished . goods. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the provisions of Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, a registered person is entitled to take credit of eligible duties in respect of inputs held in stock as well as those contained in the semi-finished goods & finished goods. rRule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, provides that every registered person entitled to take credit of input tax credit under Section 140 shall submit a declaration electronically in Form TRAN-1 on the common portal specifying therein, the amount of input tax credit. 5. Even though, the GST had been implemented with effect from 01.07.2017, however, the electronic system/common portal was not available/accessible for operation. Only few services like registration, migration were made available on the portal. Neither the GST Returns monthly/quarterly were available nor the Forms including the TRAN-1 Forms were made available, resulting in lot of administrative and practical problems, both for taxpayers and for the revenue. The respondents deferred the dates at regular intervals for furnishing of Returns/Forms by extending the dates, but the system . could not be set right by them and could not be made use of by the taxpayers to file returns and to comply with various procedural requirements. 6. Due to the defects in the system/glitches on the portal, the petitioner was unable to fill up the TRAN-1 Form and furnish the details on the portal despite repeated and best efforts made by it. 7. On 27.12.2017, the petitioner again tried to submit the aforesaid TRAN-1 Form, but due to system problem/glitches, could not file it. The petitioner thereafter approached its jurisdictional authorities and also submitted a letter requesting for solution of the problem. Again, when the petitioner tried to submit the aforesaid TRAN-1 Form, there was a message appearing on the portal reflecting that the filing of declaration in TRAN-1 is not available now as the due date is over.

Result 28
Madras High Court
Varadarajulu Srinivasan vs The Deputy Commissioner (St)
Honourable Judges C.Saravanan
Date of Judgment: 1 February 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 33
   
   
   

212. May be, organised companies who comply with the requirement of GST enactments may not give business with these petitioners. However, by keeping the petitioners out of the bounds of GST law, purpose of the Act will not be achieved. It will also not mean that the petitioners will not do business ie., of either supplying goods or service in the unorganised sector. They will still do their buisness, may be surreptitiously and clandestinely. 213. They may perhaps not get opportunity to supply goods or services to established players. They may still supply to smaller players who may not be keen on GST compliance by the petitioners. 214. By not allowing the petitioners to revive their registration is to de-recognise a whole lot of entrepreneurs and to not to collect GST at all from them. 215. It will only strain the system, as these petitioners will continue to carry on their business and supply goods and service ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and/or end up not paying the GST under the respective GST enactments. It will lead to loss of revenue to the Government which is not intended when these enactments were enacted. 216. Since, no useful will be served by not allowing persons like the petitioners to revive their registration and integrate them back into the main stream, I am of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and with few safeguards. 217. There are adequate safeguards under the GST enactments which can also be pressed against these petitioners even if their registration are revived so that, there is no abuse by these petitioners and there is enough deterrence against default in either paying tax or in complying with the procedures of filing returns. 218. Further, the Government requires tax to meet its expenditure. By not bringing these petitioners within the GST fold, unintended privilege may be conferred on these petitioners unfairly to not to pay GST should they end supplying goods and/or services without registration. For example, a person renting out an immovable property will continue to supply such service irrespective of registration or not. 219. Therefore, if such a person is not allowed to revive the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis registration, the GST will not be paid, unless of course, the recipient is liable to pay tax on reverse charge basis.

Result 29
Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Nagorao Auto Engineering Works ... vs Union Of India
Honourable Judges P. Sam Koshy
Date of Judgment: 2 December 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
   
   
   

It was lastly contended by the State counsel that the entire perusal of the pleadings would show that there is no detail available on record to show that the actual dates on which the petitioner made attempt to submit the TRAN-1 Form and there is also no evidence in-respect-of there being any technical glitch which prevented the petitioner from uploading the TRAN-1 form and in the absence of any such details available, the claim of the petitioner again at this belated stage cannot be entertained. 6. The issue of registered members who could not submit the GST TRAN- 1 by the last date prescribed under the statute i.e. 27.12.2017 as extended by the GST Council, came up for consideration before every High Courts. Some of the recent decisions rendered in this regard is that of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Merchem India Pvt. Ltd., (2021)67 TLD 420, dealing with a similar situation in paragraphs 8 to 11 have held as under:- 8. It is significant to note that the statute does not provide for any provision for lapsing of unutilized input tax credit for non filing of TRAN-1. The input tax credit is required by law to be credited to the electronic credit ledger of an assessee. Failure to credit the input tax credit is an infraction of section 140(1) and to Rule 117(3) of the GST Rules. Input tax credit is an asset in the hands of the dealer. A registered dealer had a statutory right under the VAT regime to get refund. Unutilized input tax credit of the erstwhile regime can be denied from being credited to the electronic credit ledger only under the contingencies mentioned in the proviso to section 140(1). On all other situations, this statutory right cannot be defeated by any procedural rules under the GST regime. In this context, we bear in mind the salutary principles enshrined in Article 265 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India also. 9. It is axiomatic that computer literacy has not reached its pinnacle in our country. Technical glitches at the transition stage to GST should not affect above said statutory right of dealers. Attempt must always be made not to deprive a dealer from a bonafide claim, through technicalities. In the wake of the transition period to GST and the switching over to the electronic portal, admittedly glitches had occurred.

Result 30
Delhi High Court
Bharti Airtel Limited vs Union Of India & Ors.
Honourable Judges Vipin Sanghi, Sanjeev Narula
Date of Judgment: 5 May 2020
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
   
   
   

SANJEEV NARULA, J. 1. Bharti Airtel Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner') has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning inter alia, Rule 61 (5) of the GST Rules, Form GSTR- 3B and Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned circular') dated 29.12.2017 as ultra vires the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and contrary to Articles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India. The challenge to the aforenoted provisions is principally for the reason that Petitioner is being prevented from correcting its monthly GST returns, and consequently seeking refund of the excess taxes paid. Brief Factual Background - Controversy 2. To fully comprehend the tax provisions and circulars that are coming in the way of the Petitioner to correct the errors it has noticed, we would have to advert to the facts of the case and also reflect upon the statutory scheme of the GST filings and also take note of the circumstances that led to this situation. To begin with, let us briefly note the facts - Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing telecommunication services in India, including Delhi, by virtue of license granted by the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India. With the implementation of GST, it took registration in each and every State and Union Territory and now has 50 registrations under GST laws for making payment of CGST, SGST and IGST. Since the compliance regime under the GST laws is significantly different and the statutory provisions provide for a complete electronic model of compliances, Petitioner remoulded its system from the centralized registration under the erstwhile service tax regime, to multiple registrations under GST in order to bring it in conformity with the new laws. This included introduction of the technical changes for enabling filing of the statutory Forms GSTR-1, 2 and 3. However, while putting the new law into practice, Government could not operationalise Forms GSTR-2 and 3 and, as a result a summary scheme of filing Form GSTR- 3B was introduced. The petitioner states that this half-baked step of the Respondents is the root cause in the failure of the system in detecting the errors which in the course of time created the situation wherein the petitioner finds itself.


Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is intended for informational purposes only and is designed to assist legal professionals, law students, and other professionals such as Chartered Accountants (CA), Company Secretaries (CS), and Cost and Management Accountants (CMA). Patodia Infotech Private Limited utilizes artificial intelligence (AI) to generate information based on various laws, acts of India, and judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Tribunals of India. However, we do not make any guarantees regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information provided.

Legal professionals are advised to independently verify the information and conduct their own research to validate its applicability to specific cases or situations. The contents of this website do not constitute legal advice, and reliance on them should be at the discretion and risk of the individual legal professional.

Patodia Infotech Private Limited hereby disclaims all representations and warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the contents. We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of or reliance on the information provided on this website.

By accessing and using this website, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Patodia Infotech Private Limited and its affiliates from any claims, damages, losses, or liabilities arising from your use of or reliance on the information presented herein.

Information

  • Patodia Infotech Private Limited (CIN: U52609KA2017PTC103319) 15th Main, 17th Cross J P Nagar, 5th Phase Bangalore 560 078 Karnataka, India

  • +91 806 840 2226

Menu

Quick Links

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Sign up to VakilAI’s monthly newsletter to get the latest updates.

We don’t send you any spam emails

Copyright © VakilAI | All Right Reserved


Copyright © 2021-2025 Patodia Infotech Private Limited, All Rights Reserved.