Online games played on the Petitioners’ platforms are not taxable as ‘Betting’ and ‘Gambling’

Issuance of notice under Section 61(3) is not a condition precedent for initiating action under Section 74

Supplier to furnish information about goods exceeding value of Rs.50,000 in PART-A of FORM GST EWB-01, even for reasons other than supply

Writ petition filed after expiry of limitation period of a preferring appeal is not maintainable.

Levy of tax based on entries found in a diary recovered by the Special Investigation Branch during the inspection at the assessee’s resort, was upheld.

petition dismissed due to non co operation on the side of assessee to the department

GST authorities have power to conduct search and seizure in SEZ units.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Penalty imposed for transporting goods with expired e-way bill.

Writ not entertained as impugned order was passed without violation of principles of natural justice

Detention of goods U/s 129 of the CGST Act – SCN was set aside at initial stage by the High Court – Declared as pre-mature by the SC.

Documents or book or things' seized u/s 67 can be retained for a maximum period of four and half years

Subcontracting for a service is not an intermediary Service.

Omission/ error in GSTR-1 cannot be rectified beyond period prescribed u/s 39(9) of CGST Act.

The payment of 10% of tax in dispute in terms of Section 107(6) of MGST Act

To compute the period of limitation for filing of refund application, the period from 01-03-2020 to 28-02-2020 shall stands excluded.

Seeking GST/Service Tax exemption by HGOs/PTOs on the service rendered by them to Haj Pilgrims.

AAR as well as AAAR have declined to grant advance ruling since the investigation is already pending on the same subject matter - AAR ruling upheld.

• Challenging the constitutionality of the Notification No. 8/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017 and Notification No.10/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017

The petitioner seeking direction of exemption from personal appearance pursuant to summons issued u/s 70 of the GST Act issued by Respondent Superintendent, DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur.

post decisional or remedial hearing

Goods cannot be confiscated u/s 130 for alleged wrongful claim of input tax credit.

Violation of principles of Natural Justice

Mode of service of notice.

Payment made during the course of investigation is not considered as ascertained tax, refund the same

Goods cannot be confiscated u/s 130 for alleged wrongful claim of input tax credit.

testing

testmark

Claim of ITC as lupsum

for granting exemption from tax first seller should be a real and identifiable dealer within State - mere non payment of tax by first seller within State does not shift liability to pay tax on second seller

Claim of refund of taxes paid by the SEZ itself on the purchases/services made from several suppliers/vendors for the development of the SEZ - Appellate Authority – Rejected appeal.

Payment of pre-deposited 10% of disputed amount of tax from ECRL before Appellate Authority – Rejected appeal

filing of an appeal before first Appellate Authority beyond the period of limitation under section 107(1) & (4) of the act - Rejected the appeal.

ITC claimed by filing of TRAN-1, but never utilized - levy of interest and penalty.

Undervaluation or wrong route cannot be grounds for seizure of goods in transit.

Unutilized balance in the cash ledger on account of deposits u/s 52 i.e. ‘Collection of tax at Source’ is refundable in terms of Section 49(6).

Claim of refund of taxes paid by the SEZ itself on the purchases/services made from several suppliers/vendors for the development of the SEZ - Appellate Authority – Rejected appeal.

Payment of pre-deposited 10% of disputed amount of tax from ECRL before Appellate Authority – Rejected appeal - upheld the orders of the AA.

after some scrutiny was issued by the State authorities

Challenging the summons issued by the Central authorities after some scrutiny was issued by the State authorities

Refund of accumulated ITC on inverted duty structure – refund of excess ITC on input services

Cancellation of registration

Statuatory remedy under Section 107 – filing of writ petition directly

• The proceedings of cancellation of registration cannot be kept hanging fire on any pretext, including that assessee failed to file reply within the time allowed. Authority issuing the notice is statutorily bound to pass order in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules

Rajasthan High Court

the loss that is occasioned by the process of manufacture cannot be equated to any of the instances set out in clause 17(5)(h)

Madras High Court

the wording of Section 107 (4) is such that the authority is not precluded from condoning a delay of a longer period.

Orissa High Court

Assessment based on available material

Assessment based on material available

Provisional attachment – Third Party

Since the proceedings are initiated by the authorities in connection with the third parties, invocation of powers under Section 83 are not available

Provisional Attachment – Partial Freezing of bank account.

Hon'ble court allowed

that no notice demanding payment of service tax/GST will be issued to lawyers rendering legal services and falling in the negative list, as far as GST regime is concerned.

• Any person aggrieved by the order of the proper officer must necessarily approach the appellate authority before which an appeal against the adjudication order under Section 129 (3) of the Act is maintainable.

• Section 29 of the GST Act empowers the proper officer to suspend the registration during the pendency of proceedings relating to cancellation of registration.

• When the law requires that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving an applicant an opportunity of being heard, the same cannot be substituted by telephonic conversations and exchange of e-mails.

• Section 75(4) of the CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 states that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person

• Service on the driver would not fall within any of the category specified from the Clause a to f of Section 169 (1) of the Act.

• While determining the taxable value of supply of lottery the prize money is not to be excluded for the purpose of levy of GST.

• The Hon’ble court held that it is mandatory to pay 15% Penalty and interest along with tax if the assessee agrees to pay before issue of Show Cause Notice under section 74.

Assessing Officer, in all fairness, should wait till the end of the working day when personal hearing was fixed, before finalizing the assessment. Finalization of assessment on the same day when the matter was listed for hearing would militate against the requirement of natural justice.

• The returns were filed beyond the period of one month stipulated under Section 62 of the Act. the petitioner cannot aspire for the benefit of getting the assessment orders passed on best judgment basis set aside, as contemplated under Section 62 of the Act.

• The Goods and Services Tax [Compensation to States] Act, 2017, does not deal and speak about the consequences of non-compliance of the time line stipulated under Subsection [2] of Section 7 of the said Act and therefore, it can be construed only as directory and not mandatory.

• The Respondents have found the Petitioner to be eligible for input credit amounting to Rs. 78,62,466/-, the finding of the ITGRC would in the face of the admission by the Respondents to the amount of credit, would be a mere technicality which cannot come in the way of substantial justice.

a conjoint reading of Section 2(17), 2(31), 2(75) and 67(2) makes it clear that money can also be seized by authorized officer.

• All the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 54(3)(ii) are dismissed. • All the writ petitions challenging the validity of Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules on the ground that it is ultra vires Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act and/or the Constitution are dismissed.

as per Section 169(c) and (d) of the GST Act the service of any communication to the e-mailaddress provided by an assessee at the time of registration, as also by making available the communication in the common portal of the department, is to be treated as an effective communication under the statute.

Detention under Section 129 is to be exercised only in cases where a transportation of goods is seen to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules and not simply because a document relevant for assessment does not contain details of tax payment.

It cannot be said that the provision of Section 13(8)(b) r.w. Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 are ultra vires or unconstitutional in any manner

• Hon'ble court held that : “.... It is clarified, as a matter of abundant caution, that as the demand is disputed by the petitioner, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the said demand without following the adjudication process. However, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and cooperate in the investigation process..."

Hon'ble Madras High COurt Transitional ITC cannot be availed of except within the stipulated time limit.

All the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 54(3)(ii) are dismissed. All the writ petitions challenging the validity of Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules on the ground that it is ultra vires Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act and/or the Constitution are dismissed.

conjoint reading of Section 2(17), 2(31), 2(75) and 67(2) makes it clear that money can also be seized by authorized officer.

1) The levy of 'compensation to States' Cess is an increment to 'goods and services' tax which is permissible in law 2) The petitioner is not entitled for any set off of payments made towards Clean Energy Cess in payment of Compensations to States Cess. 3) The GST Compensation to States Act, 2017 does not violate Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 nor is against the objective of Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 and the compensation to States Act is not a colorable legislation.

Hon'ble Apex court dismissed the appeal, which was filed against the judgment of Hon'ble High Court for state of Telangana (In WP No 4764 of 2019 dated 18-04-2019) which granted no relief to the tax payers ( who were allegedly involved in circular trading with a turnover on paper to tune of about Rs. 1,289 crores and a benefit of ITC to tune of Rs. 225 crores) against arrest.

Interim orders

when the very arrest of the petitioners is not prohibited prior to the completion of the assessment, any coercive action lesser than arrest, can not also be said to be prohibited.

Interim orders

assessee failed to produce any document or evidence to prove that it had failed to upload its Form GST TRAN1 on account of any technical glitches on common portal and such attempt was made during transitional period, revenue was justified in passing order and denying credit of eligible duties to assessee

Where Competent Authority of Kerala detained goods of assessee under transport from Tamil Nadu to Kerala on ground that goods were not correctly classified and were liable to tax at higher rate, said authority was to be directed to release goods with a further direction to prepare a report and submit same to Competent Authority of Tamil Nadu for taking action .In case of a bona fide dispute with regard to the classification between a transistor of the goods and the Squad Officer, the Squad Officer may intercept the goods and detain them for the purpose of preparing the relevant papers for effective transmission to the judicial Assessing Officers and nothing beyond. In the instant case, it is

The Hon’ble court held that: Rule 117 as being directory in nature, insofar as it prescribes the time-limit for transitioning of credit and therefore, the same would not result in the forfeiture of the rights, in case the credit is not availed within the period prescribed In absence of any specific provisions under the Act, in terms of the residuary provisions of the Limitation Act, the period of three years should be the guiding principle and thus a period of three years from the appointed date would be the maximum period for availing of such credit. Respondents were directed to publicise this judgment widely including by way of publishing the same on their website so that others who may no

The Hon’ble apex court in PETITION (S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO (S). 7425-7428/2020 stays Delhi High Court above decision