Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, Delhi

Corrigendum Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana

Corrigendum NBCC (India) Limited, New Delhi, Delhi

Flood and River Erosion Management Agency of Assam, Guwahati, Assam

IGST Credit Claimed Instead of CGST/SGST

The Karnataka High Court held that the time limit of two years prescribed under section 54 of the CGST Act for filing refund applications is mandatory and cannot be treated as directory by authorities. However, recognizing absence of any statutory mechanism to condone delay, the Court held that taxpayers can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for seeking condonation in genuine cases. It further clarified that while condoning delay, corresponding protection must be granted to Revenue to invoke provisions like sections 73 and 74. In the present case, since entitlement to refund was undisputed, delay was condoned and refund claim directed to be processed

The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its GST appeal under section 107 as “filed in wrong jurisdiction”, arising from an order-in-original under section 74. The revenue stated that, when the appeal was rejected, there was no mechanism to transmit appeals to the correct jurisdiction, though an advisory was later issued. The Court, without entering merits, held the rejection to be a mistake, set aside the order, restored the appeal, and directed transmission to the proper appellate authority within 15 days.

The Tribunal held that failure to pass on additional ITC benefits constitutes profiteering under Section 171. Although the respondent accepted findings and refunded the remaining amount, liability for interest at 18% persisted as it is compensatory for delayed benefit transfer. However, penalty was not imposed since the violation period preceded enforcement of penalty provisions and the amount was refunded within stipulated time, granting relief under Section 171(3A).

The GSTAT held that the respondent builder derived additional input tax credit benefit post-GST and failed to pass it on to homebuyers, resulting in profiteering. Based on DGAP findings, profiteered amount of Rs.11.91 lakh (including GST) was determined. The respondent accepted liability but contested interest. The Tribunal ruled that passing of benefit is mandatory at the time of supply under Section 171, and failure results in excess collection. Accordingly, refund with 18% interest from date of collection was directed. Penalty under Section 171(3A) was also held applicable. The decision reinforces strict compliance with anti-profiteering provisions.

The assessee challenged two GST assessment orders alleging it could not reply to show cause notices because documents referred to therein were uploaded on an inaccessible portal, making the orders effectively ex parte. The High Court refused to entertain the writ due to the alternative remedy of appeal under section 107 of the U.P. GST Act requiring a 10% pre-deposit, and the appellate authority earlier rejected appeals for non-deposit. The Supreme Court granted interim relief by directing a reduced deposit of Rs. 3.50 crore, issuing notice thereafter, and restraining coercive recovery meanwhile.

The petitioner challenged an order passed by the tax department raising additional tax demand on spare parts manufactured during the financial year 2021–22. The demand was raised after an audit and subsequent notice, to which the petitioner had submitted a reply and was also given a personal hearing.

The petitioner, engaged in the business of iron scrap, challenged an ex-parte assessment order and recovery proceedings initiated by the department for the year 2020–21.