Abhishek Raja "Ram"
@abhishekrajaram
MEC, STBA Delhi || Speaker and Author on GST. Life dedicated towards Tax and Economic Reforms & Simplification
Assessment of Non-Filers under CGST Act - HC Judgments
Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017, deals with the assessment of non-filers of returns. If a registered taxpayer fails to file their returns despite notices, the GST officer can assess their tax liability based on available information and issue a best judgment assessment order. However, the assessment order is deemed withdrawn if the taxpayer submits the pending returns within 30 days.
Few Important Judgments on this issue:
Asseesee's reply can't be ignored - Delhi High Court
ORDER QUASHED by DELHI HIGH COURT: Department Overlooked Assesee’s Reply Under GST
1️⃣ Facts of the Case ⚖️
• On 21 May 2024, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 to the Assesee, calling for a reply by 21 June 2024.
• The Assesee did not submit any reply by 21 June 2024.
• On 23 July 2024, the Department extended time till 01 August 2024.
• On 26 July 2024, the Assesee furnished a detailed reply.
• Nevertheless, on 09 August 2024, the Department passed the final (impugned) order, erroneously recording that no reply was filed.
Top 5 Burning Issues on GST Registrations
Burning Issues on GST Registration..!!
Thoughts, Insight and Research by: Abhishek Raja Ram, 9810638155
Q1. Is having more than one GST registration at the same address permissible?
A1. YES, AAR-Kerala in Spacelance Office Solutions P Ltd. In re (2019) 108 taxmann com 234
The applicant was engaged in sub-leasing of office spaces as 'co-working spaces'. There were multiple companies functioning from same address with distinct desk numbers (with co-working spaces i.e. shared office space). It was held that each company can obtain separate GST registration with respective desk number (As per this principle, it can be cabin number also).
SCN cannot be vague - MP HC in Pioneer Sales
GST Registration Cancellation Set Aside by Madhya Pradesh High Court: SCN Must Not Be Vague.
Pioneer Sales And Services vs Union of India
(WP-41070-2024; dated 06-Feb-2025)
✅ Key Takeaways 📊:
• SCN must specify reasons, authority name, and designation.
• Vague SCNs are invalid.
• Re-adjudication must include proper documentation and hearing.
✅ SCN is the foundation of litigation, and allegations cannot be vague. Supreme Court in Brindavan Beverages.
#GST #TaxLitigation #GSTJudgments
ITC on Mobile Tower allowed
CENVAT Credit on Mobile Towers & Shelters Allowed by Gauhati HC 📲💼 – Refund Granted with Interest
🔑 Key Takeaways:
• Towers and shelters are 'inputs' under Rule 2(k) and 'capital goods' under Rule 2(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules.
• Essentiality test: Without towers, mobile telephony is impractical.
• SC precedent is binding on similar GST disputes.
• Refund with interest directed due to wrongful denial of credit.
📲 #GST #CENVATCredit #TaxLitigation
Assessee’s Argument:
Towers and shelters are indispensable for mobile services, making them 'inputs' under Rule 2(k) or 'capital goods' under Rule 2(a).
Department's Argument:
Towers are immovable structures, not 'goods,' and thus not eligible for CENVAT credit. Shelters merely house equipment and have no direct nexus with service provision.
Jharkhand High Court on non-application of mind
🚨Non-Consideration of Assessee’s Reply Held as Prima Facie Non-Application of Mind by Jharkhand HC ⚖️ GST Order Stayed!
Key Takeaways
✅ An order passed without considering the Assessee’s reply violates natural justice.
✅ Adjudicating and appellate authorities must apply their mind to contentions raised in SCNs.
✅ The Jharkhand HC has stayed the order, indicating procedural lapses.
✅ Strengthens jurisprudence against arbitrary GST adjudication.
Can Penalty under section 74 and 122 be levied
Can the GST Department impose penalties under both section 74 and section 122 for the same offence? Is it permissible to levy a double penalty for a single offence?
Thoughts, Insight and Research by: Abhishek Raja Ram, 9810638155
1. Penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 dropped in impugned order while sustaining penalty under Section 78 ibid. Reasoning in impugned order that double penalty not imposable when person found guilty of suppression with intent to evade.
Tribunal Bombay in COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI vs TIGER DETECTIVE & SECURITY SERVICE
(2010) 20 STR 639