Goods and Services Tax : Section 74A replaces the earlier Sections 73 and 74, creating a unified framework for tax recovery in cases of short payment, erro...
Goods and Services Tax : This case explains situations where ITC is availed and utilised without receipt of goods or services. The ruling clarifies that su...
Goods and Services Tax : Highlights how authorities routinely invoke Section 74 without evidence of fraud and explains courts’ stance that such notices a...
Goods and Services Tax : Understand the process of GST intimation in Form DRC-01A, issued for tax discrepancies. Learn about the parts of DRC-01A, applicab...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta High Court stays a GST order, citing no force majeure for time limit extension under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act for FY...
Goods and Services Tax : KSCAA represents to the Finance Minister on the misapplication of GST Section 74 notices for small demands, urging restriction to ...
Goods and Services Tax : KSCAA highlights practical GST challenges in Sec 128A & Sec 16(4), urging clarifications on appeals, ITC, interest waivers, and mu...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that negligence on part of bank in presentation of cheque within the validity period of cheque leads to ‘defi...
Goods and Services Tax : The case clarifies that Section 74 requires clear evidence of fraud or wilful suppression. Mere reliance on third-party alerts wit...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be sustained without clear findings that suppliers failed to pay tax. The ma...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka High Court held that pigmy agents employed by the Bank can never be treated as business facilitators and qualifies as em...
Income Tax : The Court held that a summary in Form DRC-01 cannot substitute a proper show cause notice under Section 73. Proceedings initiated ...
Goods and Services Tax : New GST circular clarifies payment via GSTR-3B for Section 128A benefits, and appeal withdrawals for mixed period demands....
Goods and Services Tax : Learn about the Kerala SGST Act's interest and penalty waiver under Section 128A, eligibility, application process, and compliance...
Goods and Services Tax : Kerala SGST issues guidelines on issuing separate notices for Sections 73 and 74. Ensures clarity and uniformity in handling GST d...
Kerala High Court rules composite GST show cause notices covering multiple assessment years are impermissible under Section 74 of the Act, citing distinct time limits.
Delhi High Court sets aside GST order for failure to consider taxpayer’s reply and provide personal hearing; validity of related notifications before Supreme Court.
Madras High Court held that in absence of suppression of facts, wilful misstatement or fraud, notice issued u/s. 74 of the CGST Act shall be deemed as notices and orders passed u/s. 73 of the CGST Act and accordingly, benefit under Amnesty Scheme admissible.
Jharkhand HC sets aside GST SCN summary (DRC-01) and order lacking officer’s digital signature, citing precedent. Liberty granted for fresh proceedings.
CESTAT Mumbai held that taxing entirety of income as consideration under ‘management, maintenance or repair service’ without disaggregating consideration among several activities is lack of wherewithal. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back.
Patna High Court held that section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates granting at least three opportunities of personal hearing at sufficient interval. Order passed without complying the same is liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that petitioner was not aware about the GST SCN uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’, accordingly, order passed in absence of the reply is liable to be quashed. Notably, 30 days time given to petitioner to furnish reply.
Delhi High Court held that demand on account of ITC availed from supplier whose GST registration has been cancelled retrospectively is remitted back for fresh adjudication since co-ordinate bench has set aside retrospective cancellation of supplier’s registration.
Patna High Court held that extended period of limitation of five years under proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 in as much as transactions were not disclosed in ST-3 and relevant information were not provided to taxing authority.
Delhi High Court held that the authorities are legally obligated to conclude the adjudication with due expedition, thus an inordinate and unexplained delay on behalf of the authorities would constitute sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, petition allowed.
