Gauhati High Court Quashes GST Time Limit Extension for Lack of GST Council Recommendation0 comments Saturday, June 14, 2025In a significant ruling, the Gauhati
High Court, in the case of Mahabir Tiwari v. Union of India, has set
aside and quashed Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated December 28, 2023.
This notification, which extended the time limit for issuing orders under
Section 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act for the
financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20, was deemed "ultra vires" (beyond
legal power) due to the absence of a recommendation from the Goods and Services
Tax (GST) Council. The petitioner, Mahabir Tiwari,
challenged the validity of the said notification, arguing that the extension of
the limitation period for proceedings under Section 73 was invalid as it was
done without the mandatory recommendation of the GST Council and without
considering any "force majeure" conditions. The petitioner's firm had
faced a demand of Rs. 1,20,01,973 based on an order passed on August 29, 2024,
following the challenged extension. The
Core of the Legal Challenge: Section 168A and GST Council's Role The crux of the matter revolved
around Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, which grants the Government the
power to extend time limits in special circumstances. Crucially, this power can
only be exercised "on the recommendations of the GST Council by
notification" and specifically for "actions which cannot be completed
or complied with on account of force majeure". The petitioner contended
that there was no force majeure as required under Section 168A for the
extensions granted. The High Court observed that
Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated December 28, 2023, which extended
the limitation for financial year 2018-19 until April 30, 2024, and for
financial year 2019-20 until August 31, 2024, was issued without the
recommendation of the GST Council. Precedent
and Judicial Reasoning The court heavily relied on a
similar case, Barkataki Print and Media Services v. Union of India,
where a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court had already ruled Notification
No. 56/2023-Central Tax to be ultra vires for the very same reason – being
issued without the GST Council's recommendation. In its detailed reasoning, the
Gauhati High Court affirmed that the term "on the recommendation of the
Council" in Section 168A implies that such a recommendation is a
"sine qua non" or an essential prerequisite for the Government to
exercise its power to extend timelines. The court cited the Supreme Court's
observations in V.M. Kurian v. State of Kerala, emphasizing that the meaning of "recommendation"
must be understood in the context of the rules and their objectives, signifying
a "favourable report". The judgment further delved into the
constitutional framework of GST, particularly Articles 246A and 279A,
highlighting the unique cooperative federalism inherent in the GST regime. The
court clarified that while not all recommendations of the GST Council may be
binding, the specific wording of Section 168A makes the existence of a
recommendation a mandatory condition for exercising delegated legislative power.
The court noted that the Central Government's admission of no recommendation
from the GST Council, while still stating "on the recommendations of the
Council" in the notification, amounted to a "colourable exercise of
power". Furthermore, the court found that
the "force majeure" condition, which is a prerequisite for extensions
under Section 168A, was not considered by the GST Council before the issuance
of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax. Outcome
and Implications In light of these findings, the
Gauhati High Court concluded that Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax was
indeed ultra vires the Central Act and legally unsustainable. Consequently, the
Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated May 30, 2024, and the subsequent
Order-in-Original dated August 29, 2024, issued against Mahabir Tiwari, were
also set aside and quashed, as they were based on an invalid extension of the
limitation period. This judgment reinforces the
critical role of the GST Council in the Indian indirect tax system,
underscoring that the Government's power to extend time limits under Section
168A is not unfettered but is contingent upon the specific recommendations of
the Council and the presence of force majeure conditions. It provides
significant relief to taxpayers affected by extensions issued without adherence
to these statutory requirements.
Goods accompanied by soft copy of invoice instead of physical copy, penalty u/s 51(7)of PVAT Act not warranted when transaction is genuine2 comments Thursday, May 5, 2022
The Hon'ble Punjab VAT Tribunal in the case of Rakesh jewellers vs State of Punjab Appeal no. 227 of 2018 dated 22.04.2022 has quashed a penalty u/s 51(7)(b) of Punjab VAT Act which was levied on the ground that goods i.e. 1 Kg Gold Bar was not accompanying the physical copy of invoice at the time of detention of goods.
The Tribunal noted that the goods were accompanied by soft of copy of invoice and the genuineness of the transaction was proved by the appellant before the inquiry officer by producing the books of accounts and also the seller concerned. The seller also confirmed the fact before the inquiry officer that the physical copy of invoice could not be issued due to printer not working, but a soft copy was given to the appellant. In view of all the facts, Tribunal concluded that no case u/s 51(7)(b) is made out and thus deleted the penalty of Rs 9 lakh approximately. The judgement can be downloaded herebelow RAKESH JEWELLERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB
Proposed amendments in GST in Budget 20213 comments Wednesday, February 3, 2021Amendment in section 7-Scope of supply: Section of 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 deals with the scope
of supply. It defines supply in an inclusive manner. It is proposed to add
clause (aa) in sub-section 1 of section 7 which runs as under: “(aa)
the activities or transactions, by a person, other than an individual, to its
members or constituents or vice versa, for cash, deferred payment or other
valuable consideration.
Explanation.––For
the purposes of this clause, it is hereby clarified that, notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any
judgment, decree or order of any Court, tribunal or authority, the person and
its members or constituents shall be deemed to be two separate persons and the
supply of 77 activities or transactions inter se shall be deemed to take place
from one such person to another;”
The
above amendment seem to have been carried out to nulify the landmark judgement
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta. Club Limited (2017) 5 SCC 356
wherein the court held that service tax need not be charged
by clubs for services to its members. The verdict was seen as also being
applicable in GST as GST has replaced service tax.
Now
after this amendment such transaction and activities will be covered by scope of
supply. It
is pertinent to mention here that along with this amendment simultaneously para
7 of Schedule II to CGST Act is also proposed to be omitted, which provided the
similar provisions which was deemed to be as supply even without consideration.
Now after the amendment the said activites are itself included in the
definition of scope of supply with a specific explanation overriding any other
law or judgement contrary to it. Amendment in section 16-Additional
condition for claiming ITC:
Section 16 of the CGST Act deals with the
conditions for claiming input tax credit by any person. An additional condition
is proposed to be added in section 16 which mandates that the invoice or debit
note on the basis of which credit is taken must be uploaded in GSTR-1 by the
supplier and the same should also have been communicated to the recipient in
terms of procedure laid down in section 37. The proposed amendment is as
follows:
“(aa)
the details of the invoice or debit note referred to in clause (a) has been
furnished by the supplier in the statement of outward supplies and such details
have been communicated to the recipient of such invoice or debit note in the
manner specified under section 37;”.
It
is pertinent to mention here that the proposed amendment seem to have been
added to provide a legal backing for Rule 36(4) of CGST Rules, 2017, which
allows only 5% ITC in excess of eligible ITC available in respect of invoices
or debit notes the details of which have been uploaded by the suppliers in
GSTR-1 u/s 37(1) of CGST Act, if that be the case can it be said Rule 36(4)
till date is ultra vires of the Act, is a question which could be subject to
judicial scrutiny.
Amendment
in section 35 and 44-No requirement of GST audit:
Section 35(5) which mandated
for audit of annual accounts by a chartered accountant or cost accountant if
turnover exceeded prescribed limit, is proposed to be omitted. Now after the
amendment there will be no need of GST audit u/s 35(5). Section 44
simultaneously has also been proposed to be amended to provide that every
registered person shall file an annual return which may include a self certified
reconciliation statement, reconciling the value of supplies declared in the
return furnished for the financial year, with the audited annual financial
statement for every financial year electronically, within such time and in such
form and in such manner as may be prescribed.
The
time period earlier prescribed for filing annual return as 31st
December every year now is also proposed to be amended within such time as may
be prescribed.
Amendment in section 50-Interest only
on tax paid through cash ledger:
Section 50 is proposed to be amended to
provide that interest on tax payable in respect of supplies made during a tax
period and declared in the return for the said period furnished after the due
date in accordance with section 39 of
the Act, i.e. after the due date of GSTR-3B, shall
be payable on that portion of the tax which is paid by debiting the electronic
cash ledger.
In
nut shel the proposed amendment provide for levy on interest only on that part
of tax which is paid from the cash
ledger, if the return GSTR-3B is filed late.
This amendment is proposed wef 01.07.2017.
Similar amendment was also carried out in the Finance Act, 2019 however it was
made applicable wef 01.09.2020. Now, the same is done with retrospective
effect.
Amendment in section 75-change in
definition of self assessed tax:
Section
75(12) which provides for the recovery of self assessed tax which remains
unpaid as per GSTR-3b i.e. return filed u/s 39, is proposed to be amended to
add an explanation which defines the word self assessment tax.
The
proposed amendment defines self assessment tax as including the tax payable in respect of
details of outward supplies furnished u/s 37 but not included in a return
furnished u/s 39.
In other words the tax liability declared
in GSTR-1 but not declared in GSTR-3b will be considered as self assessed
tax u/s 75(12) and recovery of such tax can be initiated u/s 79 of CGST Act,
2017. It is pertinent to mention here that section 79 provides various modes of
recovery of tax including attachment of immovable property etc. Amendment
in section 129, 130 and 74: Section
129 of CGST Act which deals with detention, seizure and release of goods and
conveyance in transit has been amended
to a large extent.
Unamended
Section 129(1) provides that goods in
transit detained on the ground of their transportation in contravention
of the provisions of the Act or rules shall be released either
(a) on
100% payment of tax and penalty equal to 100% of tax payable in case of taxable
goods and 2% of value of goods or 25000 which ever is less where the owner
comes forward and (b) on
deposit of applicable tax along with 50% of value of goods and in case of
exempted goods in such case on deposit of 5% of value of exempted goods or
25000 whichever is less where the owner does not come forward
It is proposed to amend the above Clauses
(a) and (b) of section 129(1) to provide that goods shall be released
(a) on penalty of 200% of tax
payable on the goods in question, where owner comes forward
and
(b)on payment of penalty @
50% of the value of goods or 200% of tax payable whichever is higher, where the
owner does not come forward. The
word applicable tax has been omitted in the proposed amendment in both the
above clauses. However the proposed amendment would not result in any relief from
the amount payable under section 129 as with deltetion of the words applicable
tax, penalty amount has been doubled. The unamended provisions give an impression of
double taxation because not only applicable tax is supposed to be paid u/s 129
but also is required to be paid in the returns filed u/s 39, since the ITC of tax
paid u/s 129 is denied u/s 17(5) to the recipient, so in order to give ITC of
the applicable tax on goods in question one has to pay applicable tax again u/s
39 in the return filed by such person. After
the amendment only penalty is payable u/s 129(1)(a) or (b), which can be
further contested in appeal. Amendment in section 74: Consequent to the amendment in section
129(1)(a) and (b) a simultaneous amendment is made in section 74 so as to make
seizure and confiscation of goods and conveyances in transit a separate proceeding
from recovery of tax. No provisional release of goods
detained u/s 129 on bond: Sub-section
2 of section 129 is proposed to be omitted which provides for application of
section 67(6) to the goods detained u/s 129. Section 67(6) provides for
provisional release of goods seized upon execution of bond and furnishing of a
security or on payment of tax, interest
and penalty payable. Now after the
amendment there will no provisional release of goods u/s 129. Proceedings u/s 129 to be completed
within 14 days: Section
129(3) is also proposed to be amended so
as to provide that notice after detention or seizure will be issued within 7
days specifying the penalty payable and thereafter an order shall be passed within a period of seven
days from the date of service of notice for payment of penalty under clasue (a)
or clause (b) of section 129(1). Sub-section
6 of section 129 is also proposed to be amended to provide that if a person transporting the goods or owner of the goods fails to pay the amount of penalty u/s 129(1) within
fifteen days from the date of receipt of
order then goods or conveyance so detained or seized shall be liable to be sold
or disposed off in the manner and within the time prescribed. The
interesting thing in the amendment is that both goods and vehicle can be sold
or disposed off to realize the penalty amount in case of non payment, However
an option is proposed to be given to the transporter to get his conveyance released
on payment of Rs. 1 Lakh or penalty u/s 129(3) which ever is less. So
the proposed amendment in section 129(6) itself provide for a procedure for realization
of penalty instead of initiating proceedings u/s 130 Amendment in section 130: Consequent to amendment in section 129,
amendment in second proviso to section 130(2) is also made to provide for that the aggregate
amount of fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty shall not be less than 100% of
the tax payable on such goods, which in the pre-amended law is the amount equal
to the penalty payable u/s 129(1). Sub-section
3 of section 130 is also proposed to be omitted which makes the owner of the
goods liable for payment of tax, penalty or other charges payable in respect of
goods or conveyance confiscated. That means after the omission of sub section 3
only fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty which shall not be less than 100%
of the tax payable, will be payable u/s 130 where the goods are confiscated. Amendment in section 107-25%
pre-deposit in appeal against order u/s
129 : Amendment in section 83: Section 83 is amended so as to provide that
that whenever proceedings under chapter XII(Assessments) Chapter XIV(Inspection
, search and seizure) or Chapter XV(demand and recovery) are initiated the
Commissioner may for the purpose of protecting interest of the Govt Revenue may
provisionaly attach any propery belonging to any taxable person or any person
specified u/s 122(1A). In the unamended section attachment could be done only
during the pendency of proceedings u/s 62,64,67,73 or 74. Amendment in section 16 of IGST Act- There
is a proposal for a major amendment in section 16 of IGST Act. Section 16(3) of
IGST Act today provides that Export of goods or services can be done in two
ways One
With payment of IGST where refund is automatically given by customs Two
without payment of IGST where refund has to be applied of unutilized Input tax
credit Now
the proposed amendment provides that export of goods or services will be done
only without payment of IGST under a bond or LUT. It
is further provided in the proposed amendment that in case of non-realisation
of sale proceeds within the time limit as specified under The Foreign exchange
Management Act, 1999, the refund obtained would be deposited within 30 days along
with interest. It
is pertinent to mention here that recently a similar Rule 96B was introduced
vide Notification No 16/2020 Dated 23.03.2020. It seems this proposed amendment
u/s 16 is also introduced to give a legal backing to the Rule 96B. It is
strange that rules are introduced before the relevant amendment under the Act. Under
the proposed amendment it is further provided that export of goods or services
with payment of IGST will be made only by those class of persons or in case of
those class of goods, which are notified by the Government on the
recommendation of the GST Council.
All the proposed amendments in the GST
will be applicable from such date as the Central Government may by notification
appoint.
ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SCHEME UNDER PUNJAB VAT ACT AND CST ACT2 comments Monday, January 25, 2021With the advent of GST and dawn of
old indirect tax regime in the form of
VAT, service tax and central excise etc, the State and Central
Governments are looking forward to bring an end to the litigation in the older
regime and in consequence thereof we are witnessing lot of dispute resolution
schemes introduced by Central and State Governments. The Punjab Government, Department of
Excise and Taxation has also introduced a one time settlement scheme for
outstanding dues under Punjab VAT Act , 2005 and CST Act, 1956(hereinafter
called as relevant Acts) on 18.01.2021 and implemented wef 15.01.2021. The
scheme aims at giving relief to the small taxpayers in the form of waiver from
interest penalties and partial waiver from tax already due in the assessments.
The various features of the scheme are as under: 1. Applicability: The scheme is applicable for all
the outstanding dues created in assessments completed till 31st
December 2020 under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 and CST Act, 1956. One has to
apply under the scheme by 30th April 2021.
2. Who
can apply: Any
persons whose assessment has been made under the relevant Act till 31st
December 2020 is eligible to apply under the scheme. Scheme is not applicable
for those persons on whom penalty or other demand has been imposed/raised
without assessment, for example scheme is not applicable for road side penalty
u/s 51 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005.
3.
Procedure: (a) A person seeking to apply under
the scheme has to file an application in form OTS-1.
(b) Additional statutory forms for example C, F, H , I etc if any, which could not be produced at the
time of assessment can also be submitted
along with application for further reduction in additional demand.
(c)Along with the application proof
of payment of tax determined under the scheme after waiver has also to be
submitted.
(d) Once application is submitted an
acknowledgement in form OTS-2 shall be issued.
(e) If all the tax determined and
deposited is found to be correct along with other particulars required to be
mentioned in the application, an order of settlement in form OTS-4 shall be
passed or
(f) If there is any deficiency the a
notice in OTS-3 will be issued to complete the same within 7 days.
4. Appeal
cases: The scheme
is also applicable for appeal cases i.e cases where appeal is pending before
any of the appellate authorities i.e the Deputy Excise and taxation
commissioner (Appeals) or Tribunal or High Court or Supreme court. However in
appeal cases a declaration shall be submitted that once the dues are settled
under the scheme , the applicant shall withdraw such appeal within a period of
seven days from the date of communication of order of settlement and the proof
thereof shall be submitted to the concerned officer.
5. Extent
of waiver: The
scheme provides for waiver of 100% of interest and penalty upto an additional
demand of Rs. 500000/- and additional 90% waiver from tax in case where
additional demand is upto Rs. 100000/-. There is no relief to taxpayers whose
additional demand is more than Rs. 5 lakh. It is pertinent to mention here that
additional demand is ussualy the sum total of tax interest and penalty imposed
in the assessment order.
The slab of additional demand has to
be calculated (so far CST Act is concerned ) after reduction on account of
additional statutory declaration forms.
It can be explained with the help of
an example as follows:
Now in above example although
additional demand as per assessment order is 150000/- but after submission of
additional statutory forms if the reduction in tax and interest comes to Rs.
50000/- then the slab for giving waiver under the scheme would be Rs. 100000/-
and thus there will be waiver from tax element
left after reduction @ 90% apart
from 100% waiver from interest and penalty.
In case of appeal where 25% of
additional demand is already deposited which was a pre-requisite for
entertaining an appeal on merits u/s 62(5) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005, the waiver
will be such 25% of additional demand or the amount of waiver as per scheme as
discussed above whichever is higher.
Certain
terms and conditions:
(a)Application in form OTS-1 has to
be filed saperately for every assessment year and accordingly order of
settlement shall be issued under the relevant Act.
(b) No refund shall be given in
respect of 25% deposited of additional demand in appeal cases.
(c) In appeal casee appeal has to be
withdrawn within 7 days from the communication of order of settlement otherwise
the order stands cancelled.
(d) An order of settlement shall not
be reopened in any proceedings by way of review or revision or any other
proceedings under the relevant Act.
(e) Any determined amount paid
undrer the scheme shall not be refundable.
(f) No appeals against the
settlement order shall lie before any of the appellate authorities
(g) Any tax shown as paid in the assessment
order if is later found to be actually unpaid, then the same shall be
recoverable along with applicable interest and penalty, if any, under the
relevant provisions of the Act, notwithstanding with the scheme.
Table
of waiver
The
Notification of scheme can be downloaded herebelow: AADHAR Authentication process under GST Registration5 comments Saturday, August 22, 2020
Legality of withholding refunds of exporters as per circular No. 131/1/2020-GST1 comments Saturday, May 23, 2020
Exports
under GST are considered as zero rated i.e. no tax is payable on export of
goods or services. A person making zero rated supply is eligible under GST to
claim for refund of unutilized input tax credit. The refund can be claimed by
an exporter in two ways as stated in section 16 of IGST act, 2017:
Retrospective amendment in section 140 of CGST Act-An overview2 comments Wednesday, May 20, 2020
Whenever
a new tax regime replaces an old tax regime there are numerous changes which a
taxpayer faces and there are lot of
legal challenges in the transition from old regime to new regime. For the
smooth transition of the new tax regime it is quite common to introduce the
transitional provisions under the new tax law.
RECENT LEGAL ISSUES IN GST REFUNDS4 comments Saturday, May 16, 2020
Refunds
are the important part of any tax legislation. Refund is a drawback of the
excess taxes paid to the Government subject to the conditions laid down in any
law. Article 265 of our constitution provides a base behind legislation of
refund provisions under any tax law, which provides that no tax shall be levied
or collected except with the authority of law.
Power to extend due date of TRAN-1 AND TRAN-2 in certain cases enhanced to 31.03.2020 and 30.04.20205 comments Thursday, January 2, 2020
The Central Government has enhanced the date upto which the submission of Tran-1 and Tran-2 may be allowed to be filed to 31.03.2020
and 30.04.2020 respectively. Earlier this date was 31.12.2019 for Tran-1 and
31.01.2020 for Tran-2 form. This has been done by amendment in CGST Rules, vide
Notification No. 2/2020 Central Tax.
Certain amendments in CGST Act, 2017 made vide Finance Act, 2019 notified wef 01.01.2020.7 comments
Central Government has implemented certain provisions of Finance Act, 2019 wef 01.01.2020. It is pertinent to mention here that clauses 92 to 112 and section 114 of the finance Act, 2019 which related to amendment in the CGST Act, 2017 are to come into force on such date as the
Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Section 103 of the Finance Act, 2019 has already been notified wef 01.09.2019 which related to the amendment in section 54 providing of Sub-section 8A which allowed the Government to disburse the refund of State tax in the manner as may be prescribed.
Blocking of input tax credit-New Rule 86A introduced under GST.2 comments Friday, December 27, 2019
Rule
86A in the CGST Rules vide notification No 75/2019 has been introduced w.e.f.
26.12.2019 to empower the revenue to impose additional condition/restriction on
use of amount of input tax credit available in the electronic credit ledger. This
rule has given drastic powers to the Department to restrict the credit of any
person in certain cases where there is reason to believe that ITC is availed
fraudulently or is ineligible.
ITC not reflected in GSTR-2A to be allowed only to the extent of 20%-Due date of Tran-1 and Tran-2 extended in some cases10 comments Thursday, October 10, 2019
The
CGST Rules have been amended vide notification no 49/2019 CGST dated 09.10.2019.
Two of the most important amendments are highlighted herebelow:
Compulsory Payment of tax before filing of GSTR-3B-Inconsistent working of GST portal1 comments Saturday, May 11, 2019
Section 146 of the CGST
Act, 2017 provides that the Government may notify the common elecronic portal
for facilitating the registration, payment of taxes, furnishing of
returns and carrying out other purposes under the said Act. In exercise of the
powers u/s 146 common e-portal (gst.gov.in) and eway bill portal have
been notified and are in operation. It is pertinent to mention here that the
said e-portals are for facilitating the law laid down under the GST laws and
such e-portals cannot override the provisions of law.
Proper officer can't invoke the bank guarantee till assessee exhausted statutory remedy0 comments Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee under
transport and demanded tax as well as penalty and assessee furnished bank
guarantee for tax and penalty imposed and had goods released, Competent
Authority was restrained from invoking bank guarantee till assessee exhausted
statutory remedy
No Detention of goods on the issue of misclassification or undervaluation under GST30 comments Sunday, June 10, 2018
The Kerala High Court in a
very important judgement namely Sameer Mat Industries vs the State of
Kerala has held that Issue
of misclassification and under valuation of goods has to be gone into by
respective Assessing Officers and not by detaining officer.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Featured PostTCS to apply only on cash portion of sales transaction CBDT clarifiesWelcome clarification by CBDT on TCS on Cash Sale. CBDT vide Circular No. 23/2016 dt. 24 June 2016 has clarified on FAQs of stakeholde... AddThisShareThisGet updates via email, just subscribe below and click on activation link afterwards in your emailCategory
Right consultancy at right time avoids unnecessary litigation.
Popular Posts
FollowersAbout Me
FeedjitBlog Archive
WARNING
Nobody is permitted to copy or publish the articles existing on this blog on any website or on any other media without my express permission. Total PageviewsDisclaimer
No one is responsible for any claims if somebody finds that the information/opinions provided in this blog is incorrect and the blog is meant only to share knowledge and exchange views in a meaningful manner.
Useful Links
Powered by Blogger.
|