Updates by GST Panacea

Tamil Nadu Merchants Announce Strike on Nov 29, 2024, Protesting GST Council's 18% Reverse Charge Mechanism Decision Affecting Shops, Offices, and Production Units

#GSTProtest #TamilNaduShutdown #TradersStrike #TeamGSTPanacea

HC: Permits payment of demand in 10 EMIs
Madhusoodanan Nair Vs. State Tax Officer (Arrear Recovery)

Facts:
▪️The Assessee, Madhusoodanan Nair, is a contractor for the Local Self Government Department.
▪️A demand was raised against him following an assessment order after he filed an appeal that exceeded the statutory period of limitation.

Judgment:
▪️The Kerala High Court permitted the Assessee to settle the demand as per the assessment order in ten equal monthly installments.
▪️The Court found no justification for granting any of the reliefs sought in the writ petition, leading to its dismissal.

Team GSTPanacea
7503031378

Trudeau government to send $250 cheques to most people, slash GST on some goods

#AffordabilityRelief #GSTHoliday #CostOfLivingCanada #TeamGSTPanacea

HC: Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise

Facts:
▪️The case involves a dispute over the classification of a Rs 93 Crore tax payment made by Mercedes Benz India.
▪️The Assessee classified the transaction as an inter-state supply under the IGST Act, while the Revenue contended it was an intra-state supply falling under the CGST/SGST Act.
▪️A statutory appeal required a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed amount for it to proceed.

Judgment:
▪️The Telangana High Court directed that Mercedes Benz could file an appeal without the need for the mandatory 10% pre-deposit.
▪️The Court considered the "peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case, particularly the fact that the Assessee had already paid the full disputed amount under the IGST classification.
▪️The Court also instructed the Revenue to refrain from any coercive action until the appeal was filed.

Team GSTPanacea
7503031378

HC: Directs fresh assessment order for returns-mismatch assessed twice earlier
V. G. Senthil Kumar V. The Deputy Tax Officers & Anr.

Facts:
▪️The case revolved around allegations of discrepancies in the GST returns filed by the Assessee, specifically between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, and between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7.
▪️An initial assessment order was issued based on these mismatches, followed by an ASMT-10 notice in 2023, and another similar notice in 2024, citing the same discrepancies.
▪️The Assessee argued that the same issue had been raised and dropped twice previously, and that the basis for the enhancement of the demand had not been disclosed.

Judgment:
▪️The Madras High Court directed that the Assessee could treat the impugned assessment order as a show cause notice and submit objections accordingly.
▪️The Court, based on instructions from the Additional Government Pleader, clarified that a fresh assessment order would be issued after considering the objections raised by the Assessee.
▪️This effectively closed the writ petition, allowing for a new opportunity to resolve the discrepancies.

Team GSTPanacea
7503031378

Failure to disclose foreign assets or income could lead to Rs 10 lakh penalty, warns Income Tax department?

#ForeignAssetDisclosure #TaxCompliance2024 #IncomeTaxAlert #TeamGSTPanacea

HC: Allows taxpayer to file appeal against adjudication order, after Safari Retreats verdict
Chirantan Enterprises LLP V. Commissioner CGST And Central Excise

Facts:
▪️The case involved Chirantan Enterprises LLP, which constructed a building on its own land and leased it to a school.
▪️The Adjudicating Authority denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth approximately ₹6.7 crores, leading the Assessee to challenge the decision.
▪️The main contention was whether the building qualifies as "plant" under the GST law, which would allow ITC entitlement as per Section 17(5), clauses (c) and (d) of the CGST Act.
▪️The Assessee cited the Supreme Court's decision in Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd., where the eligibility for ITC on immovable properties used for leasing was considered.

Judgment:
▪️The Madhya Pradesh High Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Safari Retreats regarding ITC entitlement on leased immovable properties.
▪️The Court noted key points from the Supreme Court judgment and allowed the Assessee to pursue an appeal before the Appellate Authority, with the liberty to file relevant documents and rely on the legal precedent set by Safari Retreats.
▪️The writ petition was disposed of by directing the Assessee to avail of the appeal remedy, thus providing an opportunity to contest the denial of ITC based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation.

TeamGSTPanacea
7503031378

“No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” - Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Friends,
You can use this important Article of the Constitution in many cases. Revenue cannot collect excess tax or deny you refund. Please save/bookmark this post for the future.

Original Research by: Abhishek Raja Ram; 9810638155

1. Diwakar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - Punjab & Haryana High Court
(2023) 74 GSTL 202

GST: Tax paid under protest during investigation being collected without authority of law was liable to be refunded.

2. Credence Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. - CESTAT Bombay
(2023) 71 GSTL 294

The appellant did not provide any service because the service contract was terminated. Consequently, the advance amount paid by the customer was returned. The service tax deposited by the assessee-developer on this advance should be considered merely a 'deposit.' Retaining this amount by the department violates Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a refund of the tax deposited on the advance amount.

3. JSL Ltd. - CESTAT Calcutta
(2024) 21 CENTAX 368

Goods being cleared to the sister unit, whatever duty was payable would be available to the sister unit as credit; hence, the entire exercise was revenue neutral, and no interest was payable. Ignoring duty paid in excess and only considering duty short paid would lead to an anomalous situation where it would be tantamount to the retention of undue tax by the Government in clear violation of Article 265 of the Constitution.

4. DELL INDIA PVT. LTD. - CESTAT Bangalore
(2016) 42 STR 273

Suo motu adjustment of excess paid Service Tax. The appellant has to be given the benefit of adjustment of excess paid Service Tax paid during the relevant period. Adjustment of excess Service Tax paid would be allowed during later period to appellant. Rigidness and strictness on part of Revenue could become contrary to provisions of Article 265.

5. ENMAS ANDRITZ PVT. LTD - CESTAT Madras
(2017) 6 GSTL 12

Inadvertent remittance by service recipient due to ignorance of the law. Tax authorities had no jurisdiction to collect tax from service recipients during the relevant period. Tax collection under mistaken law was unconstitutional, contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Thanks & Regards

Abhishek Raja Ram
9810638155

Last date for
Investment Proof Submission in the office approaching

#InvestmentProof #FinanceTips #DeadlineReminder #TeamGSTPanacea

I am deeply honored to have been invited to the book launch ceremony for "Income Escaping Assessment & Its Impact on GST." As one of the authors, it is a privilege to see our work recognized and celebrated. Thank you for this memorable event.

GSTN Issued Important advisory on GSTR 2B and IMS.

#GST #GSTR2B #TaxAdvisory #TeamGSTPanace

HC: Directs Central authorities to halt parallel probe after State authority confirms ITC claims as genuine
Kanco Tea And Indus Tries Limited V. Union Of India

Facts:
▪️Kanco Tea and Industries Ltd. faced parallel proceedings by both Central and State GST authorities regarding the availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
▪️The issue involved ITC claims on purchases from three suppliers: M/s Ridhi Industries, M/s Amazonite Steels, and M/s IESA Sales Private Ltd.
▪️The State GST authorities confirmed that ITC claimed from M/s Ridhi Industries and M/s Amazonite Steels was genuine and eligible.
▪️The Assessee argued that, according to Section 6(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, once the State authorities have conducted an investigation, the Central authorities lack jurisdiction to conduct a parallel investigation.

Judgment:
▪️The Gauhati High Court directed the Central GST authorities to discontinue their investigation into the ITC claimed from M/s Ridhi Industries and M/s Amazonite Steels, in light of the State authorities’ confirmation of the genuineness of the ITC claims.
▪️However, for ITC claims related to M/s IESA Sales Private Ltd. for the period 2020-21, the Court allowed the Central authorities to proceed with their investigation, as it was initiated solely by the Central authorities and the ▪️Assessee had no objection to this specific investigation.
▪️The decision was based on an instruction issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, which indicated that the ITC from M/s Ridhi Industries and M/s Amazonite Steels was legitimate, leading the Court to uphold the principles under Section 6(2) to avoid duplicative proceedings.

Team GSTPanacea
7503031378

Title: Biplah Kumar Patra Vs Additional State Of Officer
Court: Orissa High Court
Date: January 16, 2024
Citation No : W.P. (C) No. 487 of 2024
#GST #OrissaHighCourt #Caselaw #TeamGstPanacea

Tax burden shifting to super-rich, but middle class barely growing

#TaxReform #IncomeInequality #MiddleClassRelief #TeamGSTPanacea

HC: Restores ITC denial to show cause notice stage owing to new ITC mechanism
Moon Match Works V. The State Tax Officer

Facts:
▪️The dispute involved the rejection of Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by Moon Match Works due to the limitation period specified under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act.
▪️The Assessee challenged the assessment order on the grounds that recent changes brought by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, introduced a new Section 16(5) which could potentially impact the validity of the assessment order.
▪️The difference between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B reconciliations showed less than 2% tax implications, and the ▪️Assessee requested an opportunity to present objections regarding the denial of ITC.

Judgment:
▪️The Madras High Court set aside the assessment order, treating it as a show cause notice, and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter in light of the new Section 16(5) inserted by the Finance Act, 2024.
▪️The Court allowed the Assessee to submit objections to the reassessment, providing a chance for the Assessee to address discrepancies and explain the ITC claim.
▪️The Court also directed the Assessee to deposit the outstanding tax of Rs. 87,129 for issues other than the ITC rejection while the matter was being reassessed.

Team GSTPanacea
7503031378