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 1843 Results
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
Alternative GST appellate remedy requires exhaustion despite claims that tax adjudication exceeded the show-cause notice's scope.
Alternative statutory remedy under the GST appellate framework ordinarily requires exhaustion before writ jurisdiction is invoked, even where adjudication is alleged to have exceeded the show-cause notice. After a first appeal has been decided, challenges to the validity or jurisdiction of adjudication may be pursued before the GST Appellate Tribunal where that remedy remains available. The continuing appeal period, extension of limitation and reduced pre-deposit requirement support recourse to the appellate mechanism. Recovery is not to proceed during the available period for a further appeal unless considered expedient in the interest of revenue upon recorded reasons. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Disclosure of field visit reports safeguards fair GST registration revocation by enabling taxpayers to answer cancellation allegations effectively.
Disclosure of a field visit report relied upon for cancellation of GST registration is necessary before deciding an application for revocation. A registered person must receive the foundational material and a meaningful opportunity to answer the allegations. Revocation is a substantive statutory remedy, and rejection requires an opportunity of hearing. Procedural fairness also requires specific allegations and disclosure of supporting material; vague assertions do not permit an effective response. Fresh consideration may require supply of the report, an opportunity to respond, and further business-place verification where necessary. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Works contract GST reimbursement remains enforceable against the contracting employer, while statutory tax compliance and return deadlines continue unchanged.
Incremental GST on works contracts priced under pre-GST Schedule of Rates is a contractual reimbursement issue between the contractor and the concerned employer. Although the tax burden may be shifted by contract, the contractor remains statutorily liable to discharge GST. Claims may require determination of the post-GST work component, adjustment of pre-GST tax, GST application, and input tax credit. GST return, rectification, interest, late-fee, penalty, assessment and recovery requirements remain subject to statutory limits and cannot be altered for a contractual reimbursement claim. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Actual communication of GST orders determines appellate limitation where the declared communication date remains unrebutted by service evidence.
GST appellate limitation runs from actual communication of an adjudication order, not merely its date of passing. If a taxpayer declares the date on which the order came to its knowledge, the Revenue must rebut that date with cogent proof of service or delivery. In the absence of such material, the declared date must be accepted for computing limitation. An appeal should not be rejected as delayed without examining the taxpayer's communication plea and evidence of effective service. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Vested appellate rights preserve the earlier penalty pre-deposit regime when show cause proceedings began before the amendment.
Vested appellate rights under the CGST Act arise when adjudicatory proceedings commence through issuance of a show cause notice and include the applicable pre-deposit conditions. The substituted penalty-only pre-deposit requirement effective from October 1, 2025 does not apply to proceedings initiated before that date absent express or necessarily implied retrospective intent. Substitution and the absence of a saving clause do not divest accrued appellate rights. Although an Appellate Authority cannot waive an applicable statutory pre-deposit for financial hardship, appeals arising from pre-amendment show cause notices may be filed without the newly introduced penalty pre-deposit, subject to admitted liability. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Attorney-client privilege restricts summons for legal opinions, permitting disclosure only through statutory exceptions and careful investigative safeguards.
Attorney-client privilege restricts investigative summons requiring an Advocate to disclose professional legal advice. Advocates should ordinarily be summoned only in rare and exceptional circumstances, with due care and caution by authorities. Communications, documents and advice protected under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam may be disclosed only with client consent or where statutory exceptions concerning illegal purpose, crime or fraud apply. A summons invoking an exception should state its factual basis and carry superior-officer approval. Privilege does not bar production of pre-existing documents, and may not apply where the Advocate personally participates in alleged illegality. (AI Summary)
Customs - Import - Export - SEZ
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
23 Sep 2026 
