Goods and Services Tax : The article explains that the Statement of Facts forms the foundation of every GST appeal. It emphasizes that accurate, evidence-b...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT offers broader powers than the First Appellate Authority but faces challenges relating to pre-deposit, timelines, and digita...
Goods and Services Tax : The article explains that GSTAT can condone delay only within the statutory extension under the CGST Act, unlike CESTAT....
Goods and Services Tax : The Government has extended the deadline for filing eligible GSTAT appeals to 31 July 2026. The extension applies only to specifie...
Goods and Services Tax : The GSTAT committee proposed digital filing, relaxed certified copy requirements, and longer defect rectification timelines to str...
Goods and Services Tax : The representation requests extension of the GSTAT appeal filing deadline to 31 December 2026, citing persistent technical issues ...
Goods and Services Tax : A representation seeks extension of the GSTAT appeal filing deadline to 31 December 2026, citing persistent technical issues on th...
Goods and Services Tax : The Advocates Tax Bar Association has requested extension of the GSTAT appeal filing deadline to 31 December 2026, citing persiste...
Goods and Services Tax : The GSTAT Bar Association has urged CBIC to extend the GST Tribunal appeal deadline due to persistent technical glitches on the GS...
Goods and Services Tax : A GST Bar Association has sought a three-month extension for filing GSTAT appeals, citing procedural complexities and evolving fil...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gauhati High Court held that sufficient cause for delay may be explained in the memorandum of appeal itself. It ruled that an ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Telangana High Court declined to entertain the writ petition because the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is now functional and ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Telangana High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST appellate order due to delay and the availability ...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT held that retaining the same ticket prices after GST reductions amounted to profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act. ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court held that writ petitions need not continue once the GSTAT becomes operational and statutory appeal timelines are availab...
Goods and Services Tax : The Government has fixed 31 July 2026 as the last date for filing GST Appellate Tribunal appeals and applications in specified old...
CA, CS, CMA : KSCAA has urged the Government to extend the GSTAT appeal filing deadline by three months, citing technical glitches, procedural a...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT instructed scrutiny officers not to raise defects where appellants have uploaded the required documents in prescribed form. ...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT Mumbai Bench has officially commenced functioning, making it mandatory for taxpayers within its jurisdiction to file appeals...
Goods and Services Tax : The Committee recommended replacing daily cause lists with weekly schedules and permitting supplementary lists when necessary. The...
The GST Appellate Tribunal held that Section 171 does not apply where the housing project began and was executed fully after GST implementation. It accepted the DGAPs finding of no profiteering and closed proceedings.
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report after verifying that the developer passed on ITC benefits exceeding the computed liability. With the balance amount paid, no further action was required under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
The Tribunal held that additional ITC benefits under GST were not passed on to homebuyers across three projects. The builder must refund ₹98.72 lakh with interest under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
GSTAT directed the DGAP to recompute the profiteered amount after noting that only the services component of the ₹89 crore pre-GST value was considered. A revised report under Rule 133(2A) must be filed within one month.
The Tribunal directed DGAP to re-examine calculation issues after the Respondent challenged the method of computing profiteering. Questions on service ITC deduction and price comparison require fresh scrutiny.
GSTAT held that claims of increased royalty, rent, and commissions were unsupported by cogent evidence. The supplier failed to rebut the presumption that GST rate reduction must result in commensurate price cuts.
The Tribunal accepted DGAP findings that total profiteering was ₹5.20 crore, though ₹6.63 crore had already been passed on. Only ₹5.80 lakh remains payable to certain buyers.
Appeals dismissed as time-barred through FORM GST APL-02, without a reasoned order under Section 107, may deny taxpayers access to GSTAT. The key issue is whether an acknowledgment can substitute a statutory appellate order.
सेमिनार में अधिवक्ताओं ने अपील फाइलिंग, फीस त्रुटि और क्षेत्राधिकार संबंधी समस्याओं को उठाते हुए पोर्टल सुधार और समय विस्तार की मांग की।
The GSTAT found that ITC reversal claimed by the developer was not factored into the original computation. The matter was remanded for verification and submission of a revised report.
