Top 5 Recent Landmark Judgments of GST

•

Top 5 recent Landmark Judgments of GST I request that you please bookmark this tweet for future use. 1. Personal Hearing is Mandatory - Allahabad High Court Notice initiating proceedings had no provision for personal hearing.

The Order was passed by the Assessing Authority without hearing taxpayer. HELD: Records indicate that assessment order was passed without hearing. Original orders suffers from vice of not following mandatory provisions as contained in section 75(4) of CGST Act and

passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Impugned orders were quashed. Ramji Kirana Store thru Proprietor Ramji vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Oct-23)

2. Denial of ITC due to Mismatch in GSTR-2A - Kerala High Court Merely on the ground that in Form GSTR-2A the said tax is not reflected should not be a sufficient ground to deny the assessee the claim of the input tax credit.

The matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Authority/1st respondent to examine the evidence of the petitioner irrespective of the Form GSTR 2A for the petitioner`s claim for the input tax credit.

After examination of the evidence placed by the petitioner/assessee, the Assessing Authority shall pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. Heena Medicals vs State Tax Officer, Kerala (Sep-23)

3. ITC Claim rejected when Seller has not deposited Tax - Patna High Court The claim of ITC raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained when the supplying/selling dealer has not paid up the amounts to the Government; despite collection of tax from the purchasing dealer.

Aastha Enterprises vs The State of Bihar (Aug-23) 4. Direct ITC Recovery action against Recipient is not valid. - Calcutta High Court

First Proceed Against The Supplier and Only Under Exceptional Circumstance Proceedings Can Be Initiated For Reversal Of Excess Credit Availed In GSTR-3B As Compared To GSTR-2A By The Recepient.

Issuance of notices for recovery of the input tax credit availed by the recipient is not justified without conducting any enquiry on the supplier. Suncraft Energy Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax (Aug-23)

5. Cancellation of GST Registration of supplier with retrospective effect cannot be a ground to deny ITC of purchaser where transactions are genuine and valid. - Calcutta High Court

The petitioner challenged the order dated 13th April, 2022, wherein the appeal by the petitioner is rejected.

The petitioner claimed credit of input tax against supply made from a supplier and it is alleged that the petitioner claimed to have purchased the goods are all fake and non-existing.

It is further alleged that the registration of the supplier has already been cancelled with retrospective effect covering the transaction period of the petitioner.

The petitioner submitted tax invoice cum challan, debit note, e-Way Bill, transportation bill and statement of bank account of Bank showing the transaction made by the petitioner in favour of the supplier.

The court observed that at the time of transaction, the name of the supplier as registered taxable person was available with the Government record and the petitioner has paid the amount of purchased articles as well as tax on the same through bank and not in cash.

Without proper verification, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner in compliance of any obligation required under the statute before entering into the transactions in question.

The respondent authorities only taking into consideration of the cancellation of registration of the supplier with retrospective effect have rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering the documents relied by the petitioner.

HELD: The High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondent no. 1 to consider the grievance of the petitioner afresh by taking into consideration of the documents which the petitioner intends to rely in support of his claim and shall dispose of the claim

by passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. Gargo Traders vs The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (State Tax) (Jun-23) I hope you will find this compilations useful.