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...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that clubbing five assessment years in a single GST show cause notice is contrary to Section 73 of the ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that an order under Section 74 cannot be passed when the notice was issued under Section 73. The matter...
Service Tax : CESTAT Kolkata held that the respondent had paid the Service Tax before availing CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices. Finding n...
Corporate Law : The Madras High Court held that courts are empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare disputed and admitted signatu...
Service Tax : The Gauhati High Court held that the extended limitation under Section 73 cannot be invoked without specific findings of fraud, su...
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...
The Court held that the authority could not reject the ruling request based on earlier proceedings that were closed without deciding tax issues. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Delhi High Court stayed the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account, allowing filing of appeal against assessment order without further pre-deposit, pending departmental adjudication.
The Delhi High Court remands a GST order exceeding Rs. 7.5 crores due to denial of opportunity to be heard, granting the petitioner 30 days to file a reply to the SCN.
The Court refused to intervene against an SCN combining several financial years, noting that such consolidation is permitted under Sections 73 and 74. Since an appellate remedy existed, the assessee was relegated to appeal, with extension of time due to the pending writ. Recovery actions and attachments were set aside subject to filing the appeal.
The High Court remanded the assessment order after finding the petitioner was unaware of the SCN and did not attend a personal hearing. The matter will be reconsidered after the petitioner files a reply and a fresh hearing is conducted.
The Court remanded an ex-parte GST demand order after the petitioner could not respond due to a parent’s serious illness. This case underlines that unavoidable circumstances can merit reconsideration of tax proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that DRP is a quasi-judicial authority and is required to issue directions on all the objections raised by assessee. Failure to adjudicate certain components results into violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, matter set aside to file of DRP.
Karnataka High Court held that payments made at the time of search cannot be construed as voluntary under section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the payments made in form DRC-03.
Highlights how authorities routinely invoke Section 74 without evidence of fraud and explains courts’ stance that such notices are jurisdictionally invalid. Emphasizes the need for proper scrutiny and adherence to statutory safeguards.
The tribunal held that the State Electricity Board consumer tariff of ₹6.62/unit was the valid internal CUP for captive power transfer. Rejecting comparisons with generating companies, it ruled that no downward adjustment was required. The key takeaway is that actual SEB purchase rates can reliably determine market value for 80IA claims.
