Top 5 Recent Landmark GST Judgments (Part-2)

•

Top 5 recent Landmark Judgments of GST (Part-2) I request that you please bookmark this tweet for future use. 1. GST Registration cannot be cancelled without fixing a date for hearing and without waiting for a reply to be filed. Gujarat High Court

Where from the show-cause notice, it was clear that department had not provided in details to petitioner as to how petitioner had committed fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts while obtaining registration and no documents were supplied to petitioner

along with said show-cause notice, registration could not be cancelled; cancelled registration was to be restored. Sarvoday Impex vs Union of India (Jun-23) This judgement is already been referred in following cases: SP Metal Industries vs Superintendent of GST & CE (Madras HC)

Bhati Enterprises vs Union of India (Gujarat HC) Sona Metals vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat HC) 2. Export of Service vs Intermediary Service - Delhi High Court

Since the recipient of the Services is outside India, the professional services rendered by the petitioner would fall within the scope of definition of ‘export of services’ as defined under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act.

The Adjudicating Authority is directed to process the petitioner’s refund application as expeditiously as possible. Ernst and Young Limited vs Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals -II, Delhi (Mar-23)

3. Claim of ITC - Madras High Court A registered person is not entitled to credit of input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services of both if tax is not paid to the Government. Jai Balaji Paper Cones vs The Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax (Jul-23)

4. Accepting GSTR-3B with late fees doesn't override S. 16(4) conditions - Andhra Pradesh High Court The time limit prescribed for claiming ITC U/s 16(4) of CGST Act is not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Section 16(2) has no overriding effect on Sec.16(4) as both are not contradictory with each other. They will operate independently. Mere acceptance of Form GSTR-3B returns with late fee will not exonerate the delay in claiming ITC beyond the period specified U/s 16(4).

Thirumalakonda Plywoods vs The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax (Jul-23) 5. Confiscation of goods of assessee merely on ground assessee happened to purchase goods from vendor who had no place of business, improper. Andhra Pradesh High Court

Responsibility of purchaser would be limited to extent of establishing that he bona fidely purchased goods from seller for valuable consideration by verifying GST registration of seller available on official web portal.

Purchaser needed not aware of credentials and business activities of seller or about fact that seller obtained GST registration by producing fake documents. Arhaan Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Aug-23)

This is Part-2. You can read the Part-1 at: The Part-1 covers following judgments: 1. Ramji Kirana Store thru Proprietor Ramji vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Oct-23) 2. Heena Medicals vs State Tax Officer, Kerala (Sep-23) twitter.com/abhishekrajaram/status/1729313003517206553

3. Aastha Enterprises vs The State of Bihar (Aug-23) 4. Suncraft Energy Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax (Aug-23) 5. Gargo Traders vs The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (State Tax) (Jun-23)