Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The High Court considered the issuance of notice u/s 74(1), 122(2), and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 u/s Rule 142(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for unpaid tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on cotton purchase from agriculturist. The petitioner challenged jurisdiction but was allowed to make submissions on merits. The court found petitioner liable for GST on RCM basis as per Section 9(3) of the CGST Act. Revenue neutrality argument rejected due to non-100% export. Penalty u/s 122(2) upheld as petitioner failed to pay GST on RCM basis, deliberately violating Notification No. 43 of 2017. Court upheld the order for payment of Rs. 3,73,95,300/- with equal penalty. Petition dismissed.
The High Court considered the issuance of notice u/s 74(1), 122(2), and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 u/s Rule 142(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for unpaid tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on cotton purchase from agriculturist. The petitioner challenged jurisdiction but was allowed to make submissions on merits. The court found petitioner liable for GST on RCM basis as per Section 9(3) of the CGST Act. Revenue neutrality argument rejected due to non-100% export. Penalty u/s 122(2) upheld as petitioner failed to pay GST on RCM basis, deliberately violating Notification No. 43 of 2017. Court upheld the order for payment of Rs. 3,73,95,300/- with equal penalty. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
