Bimal Jain is a FCA, ACS & LLB with 21 Yrs of Experience.He is Chairman of Indirect Tax Committee of PHD Chamber of Commerce and Member of Indirect Tax Committee of ASSOCHAM/ FICCI / ICAI / ICSI and also of GST Group of ICAI/ ICSI. His core competency and area of expertise is Indirect Taxation, International Taxation, Corporate Taxation and specializes in all aspects of GST, Excise, Service Tax, Customs, Sales tax/ VAT laws, Free trade/ economic cooperation agreements, anti-dumping duty, foreign trade policy, etc., and carries a blend of industrial and professional experience. He has hands on experience in carrying out diagnostic review of business operations, opinion & advisory services, process review, structuring of business model, litigation services at all appropriate forum, representation before the TRU/ CBEC/ DGFT/ CBDT, etc. for various matters concerning to trade, industry and commerce. Contact: Bimal Jain Executive Consultants A2Z Taxcorp LLP I Tax and Law Practitioners Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor Mayur Vihar, Phase–I, Delhi – 110091 India Desktel:+91-11-22757595/42427056 Mobile:+91 9810604563 [email protected] www.a2ztaxcorp.com
No issues posted by the user yet!
No replies have been made yet!
Showing 1 to 20 of 1849 Results
Reasonable period for GST tax-collection notices remains fact-dependent and is examinable through the statutory appellate remedy.
Section 76 requires amounts collected as tax to be remitted to the Government but sets no deadline for issuing a show cause notice, although an order must follow within one year of notice. The resulting reasonable-period inquiry is fact-dependent and can be examined in statutory appeal. Where detailed adjudication follows a taxpayer's reply and hearing, the alternative statutory remedy ordinarily remains the appropriate forum; writ intervention despite an available appeal is exceptional. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Construction ITC limitation may exclude bona fide litigation time when taxpayers pursue past-period GST credit claims.
Past-period construction ITC claims may be placed before the Adjudicating Authority with a request to exclude time spent in bona fide writ proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act when applying the statutory ITC time limit. The claim is not automatic: eligibility requires factual application of the functionality test, compliance with other conditions, and consideration of the retrospective substitution of 'plant and machinery' in the own-account restriction. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST notice service requires consideration of alternative delivery modes when portal communications receive no taxpayer response.
GST notice service through the common portal is a recognised method under Section 169, but persistent non-response may require the proper officer to consider another prescribed mode, preferably registered post with acknowledgement due. Competing approaches treat portal-only service differently: one requires further steps where communication appears ineffective, while another regards any statutory mode as sufficient. The issue is linked to the taxpayer's opportunity for a personal hearing before an adverse determination. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST portal service validity remains unsettled where notices and orders appear in less visible portal tabs.
Validity of GST portal-based service is under examination where a show-cause notice and adjudication order were uploaded under less visible portal tabs. Section 169 of the CGST Act includes making communications available on the Common Portal among permitted service modes. Competing interpretations treat portal availability either as insufficient without effective communication or as an independent, complete mode of service. The issue bears on ex parte adjudication, recovery action, appeal limitation, and principles of natural justice. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST on in-patient medical supplies turns on whether they are independently taxable or integral to exempt health services.
GST treatment of medicines, consumables and medical devices supplied to in-patients depends on whether they are independently taxable supplies or integral components of exempt health services. Section 76 applies where an amount is collected as tax but is not paid to Government, irrespective of the taxability of the underlying supply. The inquiry requires invoices, procurement and tax-payment details, and the billing method, while distinguishing in-patient treatment supplies from standalone pharmacy sales on which GST is collected and remitted. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Penalty-only GST appeals: pre-deposit applicability turns on whether appellate rights vested before the amended regime.
GST appellate pre-deposit for penalty-only orders is disputed because the amended regime effective from October 1, 2025 contains no transitional provision. Earlier provisions tied pre-deposit to tax in dispute, so an order imposing penalty alone with no tax demand did not attract deposit. The central issue is whether the new penalty pre-deposit applies by reference to the show-cause notice commencing adjudication or to the date of filing the GSTAT appeal. An interim arrangement permits the GSTAT appeal to be entertained without pre-deposit pending determination. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Reasoned GST adjudication requires genuine consideration of taxpayer replies and evidence; unexplained rejection breaches natural justice despite appellate remedies.
GST adjudication must result in a reasoned or speaking order demonstrating genuine consideration of the taxpayer's reply, submissions, and supporting material. An order that merely records receipt of a reply but rejects it without addressing the contentions or documents relied upon lacks the reasons necessary to disclose application of mind. Availability of an alternative statutory appeal does not preclude writ jurisdiction where principles of natural justice are breached by a non-speaking order. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Sanctioned GST refunds require cash disbursement when business closure makes the electronic credit ledger unusable for the taxpayer.
Cash disbursement of a sanctioned GST refund is required where permanent business closure and surrender or cancellation of registration make re-credit of input tax credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger unusable. Although the normal refund mechanism releases only the cash-paid component in cash and re-credits the ITC-debited component, that mechanism presumes a going concern with future tax liabilities. Where the ledger has become non-functional, no statutory prohibition prevents payment of the sanctioned amount in cash or to the taxpayer's bank account, with applicable interest in accordance with law. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Currency seizure as evidence may continue beyond the notice period when classified as a thing rather than goods.
Currency seized as evidence of hawala transactions, illegal gratification, or fraudulent licence closures may be a thing under Section 110(3) rather than goods under Section 110(1). The six-month show-cause notice safeguard applies to goods seized for confiscation, not to documents or things useful or relevant to Customs proceedings. Retention of currency as evidentiary material has no prescribed outer time limit, but requires a bona fide seizure and demonstrable nexus to the investigation. (AI Summary)
Customs - Import - Export - SEZ
Proper officer authority in GST penalty proceedings preserves earlier pre-deposit rules for appeals from pre-cutoff show-cause notices.
Section 122 penalty notices issued before October 1, 2025 raise a function-specific proper officer question requiring examination of the statutory notifications, the later circular, and the relationship between Sections 73, 74 and 122. The objection is not treated as a patent absence of jurisdiction and may be examined in a Section 107 appeal along with natural justice, multiple-penalty and taxable-person grounds. Appeals arising from pre-October 1, 2025 show-cause notices remain governed by the earlier Section 107(6) pre-deposit framework, notwithstanding later adjudication orders. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST recovery from partners permits garnishee attachment of bank accounts after a firm's tax liability crystallises.
GST recovery against a partnership firm may extend personally to its partners once the firm's tax liability has crystallised. Joint and several liability permits recovery from an erstwhile partner for dues relating to the period during which that person was a partner. Garnishee proceedings may require a bank holding funds for a partner to remit amounts towards the firm's unpaid dues through Form GST DRC-13. This post-adjudication recovery mechanism differs from provisional attachment. Retirement does not remove liability for pre-retirement dues, and delayed retirement intimation may extend liability until received by the Commissioner. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Independent show cause notices permit separate adjudication unless an interim stay expressly extends to connected proceedings.
Separate show cause notices arising from a common customs investigation retain independent legal identity where they concern distinct subject matters and statutory consequences. Common assignment to one adjudicating authority and joint hearings are matters of administrative convenience and do not create a composite proceeding. An interim stay confined to one notice cannot be extended by implication to restrain adjudication under another notice. Challenges involving relied-upon material, hearing opportunity, limitation, extensions, or Call Book treatment may be examined through the statutory appellate process or before the competent forum. (AI Summary)
Customs - Import - Export - SEZ
GST rectification is limited to patent record errors; disputed input tax credit claims require appellate review.
Rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act is limited to patent errors apparent from the existing record. It cannot be used to decide disputed input tax credit claims requiring supporting documents, factual verification, or fresh appreciation of evidence. The power may correct self-evident clerical, arithmetical, accidental, or double-computation errors, subject to statutory time limits and natural justice where a person is adversely affected. Substantive disputes and debatable questions of fact or law must be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy within the applicable limitation period. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST refund withholding requires a pending appeal, reasoned statutory opinion, and hearing; a contemplated challenge is insufficient.
Section 54(11) of the CGST Act allows withholding of a refund only where an appeal or other proceeding is actually pending and the Commissioner records a reasoned opinion that release would adversely affect revenue because of malfeasance or fraud. Mere contemplation of a future appeal cannot justify refusing to consider a refund arising from an appellate order. Rule 92(2) requires a reasoned order in Part A of Form GST RFD-07, following an opportunity of hearing. Appellate orders bind subordinate officers unless stayed by a competent forum. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST appeal limitation: a declared communication date triggers limitation, while condonation beyond the statutory cap remains contested.
Section 107 provides three months from communication of an order for filing a GST appeal and permits condonation for sufficient cause only within a further one-month period. A communication date declared by an appellant in Form GST APL-01 may constitute deemed communication and commence limitation from that date. The restrictive view treats this as a statutory outer limit that excludes further extension under the Limitation Act, although a contrary judicial view permits wider condonation in appropriate cases. Taxpayers should monitor portal-uploaded orders and accurately state communication dates in appeal memoranda. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Prima facie threshold for fraud-based GST recovery allows notice issuance while preserving adjudicatory rebuttal and reclassification safeguards.
Section 74 of the CGST Act may be invoked where the Proper Officer forms a prima facie, rational view from available material that tax short-payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful input tax credit is attributable to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Materials from scrutiny, audit, inspection, intelligence, or investigation may support that view, provided the statutory satisfaction remains that of the Proper Officer. Where the fraud-based allegations are not established during adjudication, Section 75(2) permits determination as though the notice had been issued under Section 73, without retrospective invalidation of the proceedings. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Notices to dissolved amalgamating companies are jurisdictionally invalid, while successor liability for unpaid GST may remain available under law.
Show cause notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act issued to an amalgamating company after its dissolution are without jurisdiction and invalidate proceedings founded on them. Section 87 applies only to the intervening period between the effective date and date of the amalgamation order; it does not keep the transferor company alive for post-amalgamation proceedings. Section 85 may permit recovery from a successor but cannot cure a notice issued to a non-existent entity. The position is particularly applicable where the tax department was informed of the amalgamation. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Extended limitation under GST requires specific fraud or suppression allegations in the notice itself before it can apply.
Section 74 of the CGST Act permits extended limitation only where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax is established through allegations contained in the show cause notice itself. These are jurisdictional preconditions, not formal recitals. A notice cannot rely on a mechanical reference to "fraud or concealment of facts" without disclosing the material supporting that inference, and a counter affidavit cannot cure omissions in the notice. For legacy periods, a demand otherwise barred under Section 73 can proceed under Section 74 only on a properly pleaded statutory foundation. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Wrong-head GST payment may be adjusted against correct-head liability, preventing duplicate recovery, interest, and penalty for supply misclassification.
Wrong-head GST payment occurs when IGST is paid on supplies later identified as intra-State supplies attracting CGST and SGST. Section 77(2) of the CGST Act excludes interest on the corresponding correct-head liability. Read with Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, the framework supports adjustment of tax paid under the incorrect head against outstanding liability under the correct head, with an adjustment order in FORM GST RFD-07. The approach treats inadvertent misclassification as revenue-neutral and avoids duplicate tax recovery, interest, or penalty, subject to verification of the supply classification and tax already remitted. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Pre-notice reply consideration in GST adjudication requires authorities to assess DRC-01A evidence before drawing adverse ITC presumptions.
Consideration of a taxpayer's response to Form GST DRC-01A is integral to adjudication of alleged wrongful input tax credit under Section 74 of the CGST Act. Where invoices, e-way bills and bank statements support the genuineness of purchases and ITC, an authority cannot presume that no response was filed without evaluating that material. Section 75(4) requires a meaningful hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. An ex parte demand based on an unexamined record may justify a fresh opportunity to produce documents and participate in hearing. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
05 Oct 2026 
