Background & Relevant FactsThe petitioner, Guru Storage Batteries, a partnership firm based in Nagpur, challenged the action of Respondent No. 3 — the State Tax Officer, Kamptee — in blocking its Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL). The blocking was carried out by Mr. Ujval Shrirampant Deshmukh, a State Tax Officer, who is admittedly an officer of a rank below that of Assistant Commissioner. The respondents sought to justify this action by relying on a Notification dated 24/01/2020, contending that the Commissioner had delegated the power to block ECL to Respondent No. 3. The petitioner also alleged that illegal recovery notices were being issued consequent to the said blocking. Court Observations (Verbatim)"A perusal of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, indicates that such a blocking can be done by the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him in this behalf, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner. Admittedly, the respondent No.3 does not fall within that category and is an Officer of the rank below that of the Assistant Commissioner.""Though the Notification dated 24/1/2020 has been relied upon to contend that the power has now been delegated by the Commissioner to the respondent No.3 (page 104), the same is under the State GST Act, whereas Rule 86-A of the aforesaid Act would contemplate a delegation by way of amendment to the Rule. The Notification dated 24/01/2020, would be of no assistance to the respondents." Final VerdictThe action of Respondent No. 3 in blocking the ECL was held to be without authority and was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed with no costs, and the Rule was made absolute. Cases ReferredDee Vee Projects Ltd. vs. Government of Maharashtra and Ors. — 2022(2) Bom.C.R. 239 (Bombay High Court)

Background & Relevant FactsThe petitioner, Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd., was engaged in providing marketing, administration and support services to Blackberry Singapore Pte. Ltd., an overseas entity. The petitioner claimed these services constituted export of services under the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and accordingly filed three separate applications for refund of unutilised CENVAT Credit for the following periods:April–June 2012: Rs. 3,18,11,287/- filed on 28.03.2013April–June 2013: Rs. 2,89,94,208/- filed on 31.03.2014July–September 2013: Rs. 2,47,28,850/- filed on 30.06.2014Total: Rs. 8,55,34,345/-The refund applications were not processed for years. The Adjudicating Authority issued a Show Cause Notice dated 22.01.2020, proposing to reject the refund on the ground that the petitioner was an "intermediary" and hence the place of provision of services was India, not outside India. By Order-in-Original dated 31.08.2020, the refund claims were rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection on 19.08.2021.The petitioner appealed to CESTAT, which by Final Order No. 51150/2022 dated 07.12.2022 allowed the appeal and held the services to be export of services — entitling the petitioner to refund. Even after CESTAT's order, the refund was not processed. The petitioner sent a letter dated 07.02.2023 requesting processing of the refund. The Revenue also filed an appeal against the CESTAT order before the Delhi High Court (SERTA 7/2023), which was dismissed on 12.07.2023.The Adjudicating Authority then processed the refund by the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 — sanctioning the principal amount of Rs. 8,55,34,345/- but denying interest under Section 11BB, treating the petitioner's letter dated 07.02.2023 as the date of refund application and holding that since refund was granted within three months thereof, no interest was payable. The petitioner challenged only the denial of interest in the present writ petition.Court Observations (Verbatim)"In a case where Revenue denies the claim for refund and the assessee succeeds before the Appellate Authorities, the interest is required to be calculated from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of application for the refund and not from the date of the appellate orders. This issue was settled by the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India: (2011) 10 SCC 292.""The said contention [that interest should be calculated from three months from the CESTAT order dated 07.12.2022] is unmerited and as stated above, the said issue stands authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra).""The impugned order is, ex facie, erroneous to the extent it rejects the petitioner's claim for interest. The impugned order sets out a tabular statement...clearly stating the dates on which the petitioner had made its claim for refund.""The Adjudicating Authority has failed to consider that the petitioner had filed its applications of refund on 28.03.2013, 31.03.2014 and 30.06.2014 for the tax periods April-June 2012, April-June 2013, and July-September 2013 respectively. And the interest payable to the petitioner is required to be calculated from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the dates on which those applications were made."Final VerdictWrit petition allowed. The Adjudicating Authority directed to forthwith process the petitioner's claim for interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, computed from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the original application dates (28.03.2013, 31.03.2014 and 30.06.2014 respectively) — not from the letter dated 07.02.2023. 👍 In favour of Assessee.

BACKGROUND The Department issued a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act alleging wrongly availed Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 19.51 crores for Financial Year 2017-18. The alleged discrepancy was that the petitioner-assessee had not submitted information in Table 14 of Form GSTR-9C, resulting in a mismatch with details in Form GSTR-9. The assessee challenged the notice before the High Court contending that Table 14 of GSTR-9C had been made optional for FY 2017-18 onwards by a series of Government Notifications, and more crucially, that the mandatory pre-condition of issuing Form GST ASMT-10 under Section 61 read with Rule 99 was never complied with before jumping directly to the SCN under Section 73(1). The Department admitted non-issuance of Form GST ASMT-10 but argued that CAG letters had been sent to the assessee and that natural justice was not violated since the SCN itself provided an opportunity of hearing. CRUCIAL COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)"Prior to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 73[1] of the CGST Act, 2017, it is mere discrepancy. At that stage, the alleged discrepancy would only be a discrepancy simplicitor but at the stage of issuance of Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under Section 73[1] of the CGST Act, 2017, there is formation of a prima facie opinion on the part of the Proper Officer that there is an act, which is in violation of the statutory obligation cast on the noticee.""The issues raised in the present writ petition, prima facie, are not relatable to any disputed questions of fact. The petitioner has raised a contention that the statutory prescriptions contained in Section 61 and Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 99 of the CGST Rules, 2017 have not been adhered to and without adherence to the conditions precedent, that is, issuance of notice to the registered person in Form GST ASMT-10 to provide the noticee either to accept or not to accept the discrepancy or to furnish an explanation for the discrepancy in Form GST ASMT-11 or not to furnish any explanation, at a period of time anterior to the impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice, the Proper Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to issue the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under sub-section [1] of Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.""Prima facie, this Court finds force in the above contentions advanced by the petitioner that an act of issuance of the impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 05.09.2023 under Section 73[1] of the CGST Act, 2017 by the Proper Officer was without compliance of the mandatory conditions precedent, prescribed under the CGST Act, 2017 and the CGST Rules, 2017, more particularly, the provisions of Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 99 of the CGST Rules, 2017, to derive jurisdiction to issue such a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under Section 73[1] of the CGST Act, 2017." FINAL VERDICT The High Court stayed the operation of the impugned Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice, finding prima facie force in the petitioner's contention that issuance of Form GST ASMT-10 is a mandatory condition precedent before invoking Section 73(1) and its non-compliance goes to the root of jurisdiction. 👍

BackgroundThe writ applicant, a practicing advocate, entered into an agreement dated 29th September 2020 with Navratna Organisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of a plot of land admeasuring 1021 sq. mtrs. at "Kalhar Blues and Greens", Ahmedabad, along with construction of a bungalow thereon. Separate and distinct consideration was fixed for (i) sale of land and (ii) construction of bungalow. The developer, relying on Entry 3(if) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) read with Paragraph 2 thereof, demanded GST @ 9% CGST + 9% SGST on the entire consideration (land + construction) after deducting only 1/3rd of total value towards land, instead of deducting the entire actual land consideration. Tax was collected from the petitioner under protest. In the companion writ applications, developers had filed advance ruling applications; the authority held only 1/3rd deduction admissible. Those orders were affirmed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling. All three petitions were heard together, with SCA No. 1350 of 2021 treated as the lead matter.Court Observations (Verbatim — Crucial Paragraphs)Para 87:"Thus the legislative intent is to impose tax on construction activity undertaken by a supplier at the behest of or pursuant to contract with the recipient. There is no intention to impose tax on supply of land in any form and it is for this reason that it is provided in the Schedule III to the GST Acts that the supply of land will be neither supply of goods nor supply of services."Para 88:"If the statutory provisions are interpreted from this perspective then the difference sought to be drawn by the learned A.S.G. between developed and undeveloped land pales into insignificance. As such, when the entry in the Schedule III says 'sale of land' then it can be land in any form."Para 90:"However, in the present case what is sought to be argued by the revenue is that the exclusion of sale of land will not be available since the land is a developed piece of land. It is difficult for us to accept such argument as at the point of time when the buyer entered into the picture, the land was already developed. Thus, even without going to Schedule III, the only service which is supplied by the supplier to the recipient is the construction undertaken for the buyer and it is such supply alone which can be taxed. Hence the fact that the land is not a plain parcel of land but a developed land cannot be a ground for imposing tax on the sale of such land."Para 96:"The answer has to be in the negative. When the statutory provision requires valuation in accordance with the actual price paid and payable for the service and where such actual price is available, then tax has to be imposed on such actual value. Deeming fiction can be applied only where actual value is not ascertainable."Para 100:"Thus, mandatory application of deeming fiction of 1/3rd of total agreement value towards land even though the actual value of land is ascertainable is clearly contrary to the provisions and scheme of the CGST Act and therefore ultra-vires the statutory provisions."Para 105:"Such deeming fiction which leads to arbitrary and discriminatory consequences could be clearly said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which guarantees equality to all and also frowns upon arbitrariness in law."Para 109:"Thus, the prescription under Section 15(5) of the CGST Act has to be by rules and not by notification. Be that as it may, wherever a delegated legislation is challenged as being ultra-vires the provisions of the CGST Act as well as violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be defended merely on the ground that the Government had competence to issue such delegated piece of legislation. Even if it is presumed that the Government had the competence to fix a deemed value for supplies, if the deeming fiction is found to be arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the statute, then it can be definitely held to be ultra-vires."Para 122:"In the result, the impugned Paragraph 2 of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 and identical notification under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which provide for a mandatory fixed rate of deduction of 1/3rd of total consideration towards the value of land is ultra-vires the provisions as well as the scheme of the GST Acts. Application of such mandatory uniform rate of deduction is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."Para 123–124:"While we so conclude, the question is whether the impugned paragraph 2 needs to be struck down or the same can be saved by reading it down. In our considered view, while maintaining the mandatory deduction of 1/3rd for value of land is not sustainable in cases where the value of land is clearly ascertainable or where the value of construction service can be derived with the aid of valuation rules, such deduction can be permitted at the option of a taxable person particularly in cases where the value of land or undivided share of land is not ascertainable. The impugned paragraph 2 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 and the parallel State tax Notification is read down to the effect that the deeming fiction of 1/3rd will not be mandatory in nature. It will only be available at the option of the taxable person in cases where the actual value of land or undivided share in land is not ascertainable."Final VerdictParagraph 2 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) read down — mandatory 1/3rd deemed deduction for land value held ultra-vires and violative of Article 14; it shall operate only as an option for the taxable person where actual land value is not ascertainable. Refund of excess tax directed to petitioner with 6% interest within 12 weeks. Advance ruling appellate orders in companion petitions quashed.  

BACKGROUNDA batch of 27 Writ Petitions was filed by various small traders and businesspersons whose GST registrations were cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST/TNGST Acts for non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. Show Cause Notices in prescribed form were issued to all petitioners and cancellation orders were passed after personal hearing opportunities. The cancellation orders ranged from the year 2018 to 2019. Some petitioners directly challenged the cancellation orders, while others challenged orders of Appellate Commissioners rejecting their appeals as time-barred, and a few challenged rejection of revocation applications. The Government had provided multiple amnesty opportunities through Order No.01/2020-Central Tax dated 25.06.2020 (for cancellations up to 12.06.2020) and Notification No.34/2021-Central Tax dated 29.08.2021 (extending deadline to 30.09.2021), but none of the petitioners availed these in time. The Appellate Commissioners correctly rejected all belated appeals as beyond the condonable period under Section 107 of the respective GST Acts. FACTSAll the petitioners had failed to file their GST returns for a continuous period of six months, resulting in cancellation of their registrations. After cancellation, they neither filed applications for revocation under Section 30 of the Act within 30 days, nor did they avail the extended amnesty opportunities granted by the Government on the recommendations of the GST Council to revive their registrations. When some of them filed appeals before Appellate Commissioners under Section 107 of the CGST/TNGST Acts, those appeals were rejected as beyond the condonable period of limitation — the delays ranging from 11 months to over 2 years. The Appellate Commissioners, being statutory authorities, had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the maximum period prescribed under Section 107. Several petitioners also pointed to the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation extension orders, CBIC Circular No.157/13/2021-GST dated 20.07.2021, Circular No.158/14/2021-GST dated 06.09.2021, and Notification No.34/2021-Central Tax dated 29.08.2021. One petitioner specifically raised an issue about the GST portal architecture not permitting filing of revocation applications despite dues being paid. The Court noted that while the Appellate Authorities rightly rejected the petitions under the statute, there was an overwhelming case for restoring the registrations in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)"The law on the limitation has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this connection, a reference is invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 70, wherein, it has been held that statutory appeal filed beyond the statutory period for condonation of delay under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be condoned. This position of law applies to the facts of these cases.""As original or as appellate authority exercising power under the respective enactments, quasi judicial officers were bound by the provisions of the Act and the limitation under it, they have acted in accordance with law. They cannot look beyond the limitations prescribed under provisions of the Act. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to their action.""the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot be interpreted in such a manner, so as to debar an assessee, either from obtaining registration or reviving the lapsed/cancelled registration as such an interpretation would be not only contrary to the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India but also in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.""In my view, no useful purpose will be served by keeping these petitioners out of the bounds of GST regime under the respective GST enactments other than to allow further leakage of the revenue and to isolate these petitioners from the main stream contrary to the objects of the respective GST enactments.""The purpose of GST registration is only to ensure just tax gets collected on supplies of goods or service or both and is paid to the exchequer. Keeping these petitioners outside the bounds of the GST regime is a self defeating move as no tax will get paid on the supplies of these petitioners.""The provisions of the GST enactments cannot be interpreted so as to deny the right to carry on Trade and Commerce to a citizen and subjects. The constitutional guarantee is unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced regardless of the defect in the scheme of the GST enactments. The right to carry on trade or profession also cannot be curtailed. Only reasonable restriction can be imposed. To deny such rights would militate against their rights under Article 14, read with Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.""This is a fit case for exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners by quashing the impugned orders and to grant consequential relief to the petitioners. By doing so, the Court is effectuating the object under the GST enactment of levying and collecting just tax from every assessee who either supplies goods or service. Legitimate Trade and Commerce by every supplier should be allowed to be carried on subject to payment of tax and statutory compliance.""These petitioners deserve a chance and therefore should be allowed to revive their registration so that they can proceed to regularize the defaults."     FINAL VERDICTAll 27 Writ Petitions were allowed subject to conditions. The petitioners were directed to file all pending returns and pay the defaulted tax, interest, fine and fee within 45 days from receipt of the order, without adjusting from ITC. On compliance, the GST registrations shall stand revived forthwith. The respondents were directed to instruct GSTN to make necessary changes in the portal architecture within 30 days to enable filings. ITC, if any, to be utilized only after scrutiny and approval by competent authorities.👍 IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE CASES REFERRED BY THE COURT#Case NameCitation1M/s. Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur & Others(2008) 3 SCC 70 (Supreme Court)2P.R. Mani Electronics vs. Union of India and Others2020 SCC OnLine Mad 8053 (Madras HC, Division Bench)3Tvl. Sunpenta Mining Service Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner (ST), SalemW.P.Nos.20083 & 20086 of 2021 dated 22.09.2021 (Madras HC)4Suresh Trading Corporation vs. Asst. Commissioner (Circle) of SGST, Coimbatore IIW.P.No.21109 of 2021 dated 01.10.2021 (Madras HC)5Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India(1997) 5 SCC 536 (Supreme Court)6In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation2021 SCC OnLine SC 947 (Supreme Court) — M.A. No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020