Knowledge Base

The petitioner is engaged in the business of generation of electricity through solar plants. The GST returns filed by the petitioner for the period of July, 2017 to March, 2019 were subject to audit. The petitioner was informed about tax liability during audit proceedings on account of wrong availment of ITC and ITC availed with respect to exempted supply. Upon receipt of initial audit observation, the petitioner discharged the entire tax liability alongwith interest. The final audit report was issued much after payment of GST liability. Post audit, the respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 74 of CGST Act and confirmed the demand through DRC-07. The petitioner contended that it falls under purview of Section 73(1) and 73(5) of CGST Act and therefore, SCN under section 74 is not sustainable. Whereas, the respondent contended that this is the case of fraud and willful misstatement.

Investigations, summon, letters from GST Authority has become common in business from last sometime and there are many practical issues which comes alongwith these communication. GST investigations are at many times hampering regular business activities as well. Further, there are many practical issues being faced by the GST Authorities as well as taxpayer such as prior approval, simultaanoues investigation by more than one GST authority, uncessary information asked etc.

GST Assessments, u/s 73, are already closed for FY 2017-18 and the due date of issuance of order for FY 2018-19 is 30th April, 2024. In many of the Assessment orders, the taxpayers have faced genuine hardship such as as the Assessment orders passed are not the speaking one or assessment orders contain clerical mistakes causing unnecessary increase in demand amount.

Appeal against order of any authority can be filed by the party aggrieved by the order, i.e., the Assessee or the Department. Filing of appeal involves lots of cost and effort and also takes up the time of the judicial authority. Assessee files appeal after considering various factors such as amount of pre-deposit required, amount involved in dispute, time factor etc. However, for department appeal the CBDT specifies a monetary limit, i.e., upto specified monetary limit, no appeal shall be filed by the department.

As we are stepping into the new Financial year, there are various compliance requirements which a taxpayer is required to do with the changing year. Any non-compliance on part of the taxpayer can lead to major disallowances or withdrawal of benefits from the taxpayer. This article list down check-list which a taxpayer is required to tick as they enter into new financial year:

The Writ petition was filed to challenge the proceedings initiated against the taxpayer by the central authorities where the taxpayer is assigned to the State authorities and vice versa. The Petitioner contended that power of cross-empowerment was given under Model GST Law. However, GST Law enacted is different from the Model GST Law.

Job work is an indispensable part of the business and most of the manufacturing entities are required to get their work done from the job worker on a regular basis. However, whether it is Central Excise, Service tax or Goods and Service Tax, special provisions are always provided under the law for goods sent on job work basis.

Since commencement of Assessments under GST, there are many practical issues which are being faced by the Assessee. One of the common issues is issuance of GST ASMT-10 and DRC-01 for the same matter. There are many instances wherein a proper officer issues the GST ASMT-10 and assessee obtains the GST ASMT-12 by filing proper reply. GST authority still issues show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 and in some cases issues the demand order as well. In this matter, a major relief is granted by Hon’ble High Court of Madra in the matter of Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P.No .2981 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.3246 & 3247 of 2024).

The Company constructed a warehouse and let it out. The Company paid the GST on such outward supply. The Company sought an advance ruling from WBAAR that whether the company is entitled to claim ITC on inward supplies received for construction of such warehouse. The Hon’ble WBAAR held that the restriction given under Section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act in respect of ITC on goods or services used for construction of warehouse is applicable in the instant case, i.e., the Company is not eligible for ITC with respect to inward supplies to the extent such expenditure is capitalised. However, where construction expenses are not capitalized in books, the claim of ITC is admissible.

The Petitioner received an order for imposition of penalty. Show Cause notice was issued on the ground that the vehicle was traveling to a destination not mentioned in the invoice. However, while issuing the order, the appellate authority has imposed a penalty on a different ground.Hon’ble High Court held that “Show Cause Notice” serves as a vital checkpoint which defines the boundaries within which any authority can operate. Show cause notice is an initial document which impose allegations or discrepancies on the taxpayer and provide an opportunity to the taxpayer to present their side of the story. Any action beyond the scope defined in SCN not only undermines the legitimacy of the authority but also compromises the rights of the individuals or entities involved.