Month: January 2024

Non-filing of Part B of e-Way Bill – Error of Technical Nature – Penalty Set Aside

Citation:

Rawal Wasia Yarn Dying (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax

Writ Tax No. 352 of 2023 dated January 16 2024

[2024] 158 taxmann.com 609 (Allahabad)

In the above case, it was held that the non-filing of Part B of the e-way bill can be considered merely an error of technical nature and the penalty levied under Section 129(3) was set aside, considering the following facts,

  1. The details of the Truck were contained in the invoice itself,
  2. The goods were not in variance with the invoice and
  3. There is no proof of any intention of the petitioner to avoid payment of Tax.

Relevant provisions of Section 129:

129. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released,-


(a)		on payment of penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to 2% of the value of goods or Rs. 25,000, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such penalty;
(b)on payment of penalty equal to 50% of the value of the goods or 200% of the tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher, and in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to 5% of the value of goods or Rs. 25,000, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such penalty;
(c)upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods.

129 (3). The proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyance shall issue a notice within seven days of such detention or seizure, specifying the penalty payable, and thereafter, pass an order within a period of seven days from the date of service of such notice, for payment of penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1).

Section 129(1) and (3) of CGST Act w.e.f. 1st January 2022

Cancellation of GST Registration to be effective from Closure of Business

Citation:

Shree Shyam Metals Vs. Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax

W.P.(C) No. 14120 of 2023 – High Court of Delhi

[2024] 158 taxmann.com 144 (Delhi)

Brief Facts:

  1. The Petitioner has applied for cancellation of GST registration w.e.f. 08-02-2021, being the date of closure of the business.
  2. The application was rejected vide an order.
  3. The petitioner made another application dated 16-9-2021 requesting for cancellation w.e.f. 31-8-2021. GST authorities have issued a notice dated 27-9-2021 requiring further information.
  4. Petitioner claimed that the said notice dated 31-8-2021 was not served on them and that the same is also beyond the stipulated period of time and not permissible.
  5. Since there was no response to the notice dated 27-9-2021, the application was rejected vide an order dated 31-10-2021. Also, SCN was issued dated 29-9-2022, proposing cancellation stating that the petitioner was non-existent.

Findings:

  1. The Impugned Order does not indicate any reasons for cancellation with retrospective date w.e.f. 01-01-2019 and also that it did not mention that registration was proposed to be cancelled with retrospective date w.e.f. 01-01-2019. Hence, the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to contest the cancellation.
  2. There is no material on record, to indicate that petitioner was non-existent as on 1-1-2019 or at any time prior to 8-2-2021.

Order:

  1. The Impugned Order canceling the GST registration be effective from 8-2-2021.
  2. However, in case the GST authorities seek to cancel from a date prior to 8-2-2021, SCN will be issued clearly setting out the reasons and pass on order as they deem fit after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Similar Decisions on this issue (Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration):

Retrospective cancellation of GST cannot be made for Non-filing of returns for 6 months.

Retrospective cancellation of GST Registration cannot be made without satisfying Section 29(2)

Retrospective cancellation of GST cannot be made for Non-filing of returns for 6 months.

Citation:

Raj Enterprise Vs. Superintendent, Range 25 GST Division

W.P.(C) No. 15777 of 2023 – High Court of Delhi

[2024] 158 taxmann.com 143 (Delhi)

Brief Facts:

  1. Petitioner stopped carrying on the business and made an application for cancellation of registration on 19-10-2021. Upon certain queries remaining unanswered, the application was rejected on 30-11-2021.
  2. On 1-12-2021, another application was made requesting cancellation w.e.f. 15-11-2021.
  3. Petitioner also claimed that it has filed returns till 31-12-2021.
  4. The application was again rejected and SCN dated 10-8-2022 was issued proposing the cancel the registration for failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of 6 months.
  5. Petitioner did not respond. On 27-9-2022, an order was passed cancelling the registration w.e.f. 19-10-2020.

Findings:

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed that:

  1. As per Section 29(2)(c), the registration may be canceled from any date including retrospective effect, but the same cannot be arbitrary or whimsical.
  2. In the present case, the sole ground for cancellation was non-filing of returns for 6 months. This would not be sufficient for cancellation of registration even for the period it was carrying business and filing returns.
  3. There is a necessity for the proper officer to apply his mind and pass the cancellation order based on some objective criteria.
  4. The present SCN also did not indicate that the petitioner’s registration was proposed to be cancelled with retrospective effect. Hence, the petitioner had no effective opportunity to contest the retrospective cancellation.
  5. The petitioner has stopped carrying on business only from 19-10-2021 and t is from that date that they have requested for cancellation.

Order:

The Impugned Order shall take effect from 31-12-2021, which is till the date the petitioner has filed the returns.

Appeal allowed to be filed Manually – Rule 108 of Haryana GST Rules (up to 04-08-2023)

In the case of Optum Global Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd Vs. State of Haryana C.W.P. No. 26273 of 2023, 2024 158 Taxmann.com 20 (Punjab & Haryana) Appeal against rejection of refund was filed manually for the period April 2018 to June 2018 on 31-08-2020 against order dated 4-6-2020. Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal on the grounds that it was filed manually.

Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has restored the appeal stating that up to 04-08-2023, appeal may be filed “Electronically or Otherwise”. Hence, Manual filing has also been accepted prior to that period.

Relevant Provisions:

Rule 108(1) of CGST Rules (Appeal to Appellate Authority) has been amended vide Central Goods and Services Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2023, w.e.f. 04-08-2023, wherein the words “electronically or otherwise as may be notified by the commissioner” has been replaced by “Electronically”. Hence, Appeal can be filed only electronically after 4th August 2023.

However, Proviso to Rule 108(1) inserted vide the same rules states that “An appeal to the Appellate Authority may be filed manually in FORM GST APL-01, along with the relevant documents, only if-

(i) the Commissioner has so notified, or

(ii) the same cannot be filed electronically due to non-availability of the decision or order to be appealed against on the common portal,

and in such case, a provisional acknowledgement shall be issued to the appellant immediately.

9 days is not reasonable time to reply to Show Cause Notice – Audi Alteram Partem Violated – SCN is invalid

Citation:

Raymond Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Writ Petition No. 26693 of 2022 – Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh

[2023] 157 taxmann.com 654 (Madhya Pradesh)

Facts of the Case:

  1. A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on 03-09-2022 under Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017, affording 30 days of time for the petitioner (Raymond Ltd) to respond.
  2. Order of Demand was issued on 12-09-2022 (Within 9 days of issue of SCN).

Grounds for Filing the Petition:

The following three grounds were preferred:

  1. Denial of Reasonable Opportunity: Though the SCN has provided 30 days, Order was passed within 9 days, not providing reasonable time to reply to the SCN.
  2. Principle of Audi Alteram Partem Violated: SCN is not self-contained – It fails to inform about the material of adverse nature which constituted the foundation of the SCN, thereby disabling the petitioner to respond. Hence, Principle of Audi Alteram Partem (Hear the Other Side) was violated.
  3. Opportunity of Personal Hearing was not afforded.

Findings:

  1. Though Section 73 does not specify a time period to respond to SCN, the statute contemplates affording reasonable opportunity to reply. Section 73(2) states that SCN needs to be issued at least 3 months prior to the issue of the Order u/s. 73(10)
  2. Concept of reasonable Opportunity demands that reasonable time to reply should be not less than 15 days at least.
  3. As per Section 73(8), time period provided for payment of tax, interest, and penalty is 30 days from the date of SCN(For the proceedings in respect of the SCN to be considered as deemed to be concluded). Hence, the reasonable period for responding to the SCN ought to be 30 days.
  4. Any SCN should contain enough and adequate material which motivated the authority to take a view against the noticee. If the contents of the SCN are lacking in Material particulars or are vague in regard to any entries contained therein, then it would be vulnerable to judicial review.
  5. Hence, the present SCN falls short of minimum period of 30 days to afford reasonable opportunity to noticee to respond and also appears to be lacking in material particular.

Order:

  1. The Impugned SCN dated 03-09-2022 and the Order dated 12-09-2022 are set aside
  2. Revenue is at liberty to issue fresh and legal SCN and proceed after affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard, to the petitioner.
  3. The petitioner shall be entitled to a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by the respondents and compliance report to be filed by them (respondents) in Registry within 60 days.

Relevant Provisions:

Section 73(1) and (2) of CGST Act:

(1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.

(2) The proper officer shall issue the notice under sub-section (1) at least three months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) for issuance of order.

Section 73(8):

Where any person chargeable with tax under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) pays the said tax along with interest payable under section 50 within thirty days of issue of show cause notice, no penalty shall be payable and all proceedings in respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be concluded.

Section 73(10):

The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund.

Ex-Parte Order Passed – Assessee was allowed to file reply to SCN thereafter, on Medical Grounds

Citation:

Pragati Construction Vs. Commissioner of C.T. & G.S.T.,

W.P.(C) No. 41802 of 2023 December 21, 2023, Hon’ble High court of Orissa

[2023] 157 taxmann.com 681 (Orissa)

Facts:

  1. A Show Cause Notice dated 27-09-2023 was issued for the Tax Period 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2018.
  2. Assessee could neither reply to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) nor appear before the authority, due to his Medical Condition of “Reeling of Head and Imbalance of Gait” and was undergoing treatment.
  3. An Order dated 23-11-2023 was passed Ex Parte (Without appearance of the assessee) by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST under Section 73 of OGST Act, 2017.
  4. Hence, the assessee has filed this petition, enclosing the medical certificate.

Decision:

Hon’ble High Court of Orissa has held that:

  1. The Impugned Order is set aside and the petitioner ought to be given one more chance to first reply to the SCN on or before 02-01-2024 and appear before the adjudicating authority.
  2. The Authority shall take up the matter before 08-01-2024 for a fresh Assessment Order to be passed within 2 months.
  3. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, he may seek appropriate remedies as per Law.