Pricing Login

Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

For Sales / Support:
WhatsApp

9911796707

Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals Articles News D. Forum Highlights Notes

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

Home

Case Laws

Home Case Index All Cases GST This

Law
Court
Citation	- -
Landmark
Order by

Advanced Search Options

GST - Case Laws

Showing 21 to 40 of 16342 Records

2025 (7) TMI 399

Power u/s 74 of CGST Act, 2017 wrongly exercised by the Authorities - petitioner has already paid the GST along with interest prior to the issuance of show-cause notice - suppression of facts - HELD THAT:- Considering that there is vacancy of Chairman in the State Tribunal as also the language of Section 74 of the Act, 2017 on reading of which, it is explicit that unless there is fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts, the said Section would not attract and further considering the plea taken by the petitioner that similar nature of issue is pending before different high Courts and in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that a strong case is made out in favour of the petitioner for grant of interim relief.

On due consideration, Instant Petition is admitted for hearing.
2025 (7) TMI 398

Challenge to order of provisional attachment of the Petitioner’s Bank account by invoking Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- A period of one year has already elapsed since the issuance of the impugned provisional attachment order in terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The provisional attachment order ceased to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of an order made under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the impugned order dated 5th April 2024 has ceased to have effect post 4th April 2025.

The attachment of Petitioner’s Bank account having No. 50200033711279 in the HDFC Bank cannot operate. The impugned provisional attachment order dated April 5, 2024, is therefore formally quashed and set aside.

Petition allowed.
2025 (7) TMI 397

Excess ITC availed in GSTR-3B compared to the Tax on inward supplies declared in GSTR-1 - Declaration of ineligible ITC - Interest on belated payment - delay in filing return in GSTR-1 and called for objections on the issues made in Show Cause Notice, for which a detailed reply was sent on 23.12.2024 and 30.01.2025, respectively - request for opportunity of hearing - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice dated 24.11.2024 was issued to the petitioner, for which a detailed replies were filed on 23.12.2024 and 30.01.2025. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed. No doubt, the respondent has provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit their reply, however, the petitioner was not in a position to arrange the requisite documents, within a time frame stipulated by the respondent. Hence, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their contention before the respondent, since the reason assigned by the petitioner appears to be genuine, subject to the payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- of disputed tax, as agreed by the petitioner.

The impugned order dated 24.02.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 3,00,000/- of disputed tax amount as well as admitted late fee and interest to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
2025 (7) TMI 396

Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) arising from the mismatch between the returns filed by the assessee and the selling dealer - Deletion of penalty - failure to take into account the relevant - taking into account the factors that are wholly irrelevant in deciding whether penalty is warranted in terms of Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - suppression in non-disclosing the turnover or not - escapement of turnover - wilful nondisclosure of assessable turnover by the dealer - best judgment made by making equal time addition towards probable suppression/omission - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of a Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 08.04.2014. In fact, a subsequent Circular has been issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes pursuant to a decision of this Court in JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited, Chennai V. Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery assessment Circle [2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Therein, this Court had suggested that a mechanism be set up for matching the returns filed by the assessee’s and the selling/purchasing dealers in order to ensure integrity of the claim of ITC - Pursuant to that decision, the Special Commissioner has issued a Circular bearing No.5/2021 dated 24.02.2021. It is this Circular that holds the field now and the procedure set out therein is being followed by the authorities as well the assessee’s to determine the proper quantum of ITC.

In the present case, the orders of assessment are dated 11.11.2014 and the order of the first appellate authority is dated 16.07.2015. Thus, neither of the lower authorities had had the benefit of either the decision of this Court in JKM Graphics or Circular dated 24.02.2021. It is only the Tribunal that could, and ought to have noted the Circular.

There is some merit in the submission of the State made before the Tribunal, albeit rejected, that the matter should be remanded to the file of the assessing authority for fresh consideration in line with Circular dated 24.02.2021 - the question of law admitted for resolution is answered in favour of the State.
2025 (7) TMI 395

Cancellation of client’s registration under Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - petitioner is ready and willing to pay the tax, interest, late fee, penalty and any other sum required to be paid - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M/s. Mohanty Enterprises [2022 (11) TMI 1521 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'In that view of the matter, the delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc., due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.'

Petition disposed off.
2025 (7) TMI 394

Cancellation of GST registration and consequent impugned endorsement - declining to entertain the revocation application - petitioner Firm is now ready and willing to file the pending returns and deposit the applicable taxes, along with interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Today, a detailed memo has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, stating that the tax liability pertains only to the financial years 2017–18 and 2018–19. While the petitioner expresses readiness to comply with the assessment orders for the years 2021–22, 2022–23, and 2024–25, it is submitted that no assessment orders have been passed yet for the financial years 2019–20 and 2020–21. In view of the above submission and the assurance extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to show indulgence by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to regularize the tax filings and deposits.\

The impugned order is set aside - matter is remitted to respondent No. 2 for reconsideration in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
2025 (7) TMI 393

Challenge to SCN issued by the respondent in Form GST DRC-01 dated 25/11/2024 - excess claim of ITC of CGST and SGST Act in Form GSTR-3B when compared with ITC of CGST and SGST available in Form GSTR-2A - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is premature in nature, since the matter is only at the stage of show cause notice and as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, the petitioner can very well file their reply along with supportive documents and offer their explanation before the respondent/Authority. Further, this Court would like to point out herein that when a show cause notice is issued, the petitioner is expected to file reply/objection and without responding to the show cause notice and exhausting the available remedies, is not entitled to seek judicial intervention, inasmuch as, a Writ Petition challenging the show cause notice is not maintainable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

The Writ Petition is dismissed, however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice that is impugned herein within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be considered by the respondent and an appropriate orders/decision shall be passed/made in accordance with law.
2025 (7) TMI 392

Seeking to quash order passed by the Respondent - non-service of SCN - SCN was only uploaded in the GST Portal Tab “View Additional Notices and Order” and the same was not served to the petitioner through physical mode - petitioner was not aware of the SCN, the petitioner could not file any reply to the Show Cause Notice - HELD THAT:- From a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the Show Cause Notice dated 27.12.2023 which culminated in the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 was merely uploaded in the GST Portal and the same was not served to the petitioner through any other physical mode. Since the petitioner was not aware of the show cause notice uploaded in the GST Portal, the petitioner could not reply to the show cause notice.

No doubt, sending notice by uploading in GST Portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who finds no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 which are also the valid mode of service under the said Act, otherwise, the service of notice will not be deemed to be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities - Merely passing an ex-parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same would pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, preferably by way of RPAD which would ultimately achieve the object of the CGST Act.

This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and further, the respondent has passed the impugned order without application of mind. Once the order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court cannot impose any condition requiring the petitioner to make any deposit.

The impugned order passed by the respondent is quashed - the case is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
2025 (7) TMI 391

Challenge to impugned order along with consequential order passed in the rectification petition - filing of rectification petition under the bonafide impression that the issue can be rectified through the rectification petition - petitioner is now ready to deposit 10% of disputed tax over and above the 10% before the authority concerned - HELD THAT:- In the present case, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent that nothing prevented the petitioner from filing an appeal immediately after passing of the assessment order. However, in the interest of justice and in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate its case, this Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority subject to payment of 10% over and above the 10% statutory deposit of disputed tax demand, as agreed by the petitioner, before the appellate authority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

This writ petition is disposed of.
2025 (7) TMI 390

Challenge to impugned assessment order and the impugned rejection order passed by the respondent - reply filed by the petitioner was not at all considered by the respondent - principles of natural justice - petitioner is willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent - HELD THAT:- In this case, it is clear that the reply was sent by the petitioner, vide email, instead of uploading the same in the portal and hence, the said reply was not considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the impugned assessment order. Aggrieved over the same, a rectification application was filed by the petitioner and the same was also dismissed vide the rejection order.

Further, it appears that the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the said assessment order is liable to be set aside. However, as contended by the learned Senior Standing counsel, the said aspect cannot be considered in a rectification application since, a rectification application will be entertained only if there is any error apparent on the original order.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the respondent - the impugned assessment order dated 17.02.2025 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration and to pass fresh assessment order - petition allowed by way of remnd.
2025 (7) TMI 389

Challenge to SCN and orders - vires of N/N. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and N/N. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 - non-reasoned order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the detailed reply has been filed to the impugned Show Cause Notice. The impugned demand order is also a reasoned order. However, it is noticed that the impugned rectification order while dismissing the rectification application only states that the application filed by the Petitioner is found to be ‘unsatisfactory’ without recording any reasons to substantiate its finding.

The impugned rectification order is cryptic and non-speaking in nature. Further considering the fact that hearing, in terms of proviso 3 to Section 161 of the CGST/DGST Act, has not been provided, following the decision in HVR Solar Private Limtied (Supra), this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned rectification order.

The matter is relegated back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority for the Petitioner to be provided a proper hearing in the rectification application - petition disposed off by way of remand.
2025 (7) TMI 388

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - ineligible ITC availed and utilised - various documents produced by the petitioner were not considered by the proper officer - violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that the proper officer had granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the authorised representative was even heard. In the impugned order, the authority has considered and discussed the contentions of the petitioner. It is specifically observed that the petitioner had admitted that there was wrong availment of ITC for the period April 2020 to December 2020 and even availed ITC instead of claiming credit in the electronic credit ledger, but it was all reversed in the month of January 2021. It has been observed in the impugned order that evidence for the receipt of goods or services and corresponding payment made for the amount towards the value of supply along with the tax payable were not available.

Merely because the petitioner alleges that some of the documents produced has not been considered extensively, the same is not a reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction, especially when petitioner has an effective alternative remedy.

This writ petition is dismissed reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedies in accordance with law.
2025 (7) TMI 387

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to impugned order on the premise that it has been made in gross disregard of the reply which was filed in response to the SCN - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - excess claim of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- While this Court is conscious of the fact that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be entertained normally if statutory remedy is not availed, however, existence of alternate remedy is not an embargo or an absolute bar to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but a self-imposed restriction and the following circumstances viz., violation of principles of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction or error apparent on the face of the record are some of the exceptions carved out to the rule of alternate remedy for exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

On perusal of the impugned order of assessment, this Court is of the view that there is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch it merely reiterates the proposal and does not deal with any of the aspects set out in the reply in respect of the above two issues.

The impugned order dated 02.09.2024 and the consequential detailed order dated 31.08.2024 are set aside - Petition disposed off.
2025 (7) TMI 386

Cancellation of GST of petitioner with retrospective effect from 1 July, 2017 - during physical verification, the taxpayer was found non-existent at the principal place of business - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises v. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr. [2024 (10) TMI 278 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'In view of the fact that Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 15-12-2021 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 4-9-2021 i.e., the date when the Show Cause Notice was issued.'

The final order of cancellation cannot be sustained - the impugned final order of cancellation dated 6 September, 2024 is quashed - petition allowed.
2025 (7) TMI 385

Classification of service - Job-work - activity of providing service of regasification of LNG owned by GAIL/others would amount to rendering of service by way of job work within the meaning of section 2(68) of CGST Act, 2017 & GGST - service of re-gasification by way of job work - classifiable under serial no. 26(id) of heading no. 9988 of notification No. 11/2017-CT (R) dated 28.6.2017 as amended & be chargeable to GST @ 12% or not - HELD THAT:- The applicant in terms of his agreement with PLL pays re-gasification charges, fixed facility charges and is also obliged to pay ‘if not used’ charges. On weighing the contention of the applicant in this background, it is found that the applicant is providing back-to-back job work to GAIL by getting their goods treated/processed through PLL. There is no dispute as far as the activity of PLL is concerned since the GAAR vide its order dated 11.8.2021 has already held the activity as job work. Now, the applicant is getting GAIL’s LNG converted into RLNG through PLL in terms of its agreement dated 18.11.2021.

Further, a conjoint reading of the two agreements, viz dated 23.12.2013 and 11.8.2021, coupled with the fact that the applicant does not hold any ownership of the goods and that the GAAR vide its earlier order dated 11.8.2021 has already held the activity of the PLL as job work, there are merit in the averment of the applicant that their activity of providing service of regasification of LNG owned by GAIL/others through PLL, is a back to back job work and that the applicant adorns the role of a job worker of M/s. GAIL, in so far as this transaction is concerned.

The next averment raised by the applicant is that the service ought to be classified under 26(id) of notification No. 11/2017-CT (R). Since the LNG on which re-gasification is done belongs to GAIL who is a registered person, and also because the services are other than those falling under serial no. 26(i), ia), (ib), (ic) & (ica), we find that the service ought to be classified under 26(id) of notification No. 11/2017-CT (R), as amended.
2025 (7) TMI 384

Levy of GST - interest awarded under arbitration” & “costs awarded under arbitration - supply or not - time of determination of such supply - rate of tax - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the transactions pertain to pre-GST period, the question of the amounts falling under the ambit of GST in terms of clause 5(e) of Schedule II does not arise. Even otherwise, the work contract dated 21.5.2009 does not contain any penalty or compensation clause for delay in payments made by GSL and further there is no clause for recovery of interest on delayed payment.

The applicant is not liable to pay GST on the “interest awarded under arbitration” & “costs awarded under arbitration”, received by them - Other questions are not applicable.
2025 (7) TMI 383

Classification of service - job work involving the cutting of metallic film rolls used to make zari/metallic yarn for sarees under the CGST Act, 2017 - taxable @ 5% GST rate applicable to certain textile job work services or @ 12% GST rate applicable to job work involving textile processing as per notification No. 20/2019-CT (Rate) or to be classified under the general job work category at 18% GST? - HELD THAT:- Ongoing through the notification, ibid, it is found that services by job work in relation to textile and textile products falling under chapters 50 to 63 in the first schedule to CTA '75 is leviable to GST @ 5% in terms of serial no. 26(i) while GST @ 12% is leviable in terms of serial No. 26(id) which is in respect of services by way of job work other than those mentioned at serial Nos. 26(i), (ia), (ib), (ic) & (ica). Further, in terms of serial no. 26(iv), GST @ 18% is leviable in respect of manufacturing services on physical inputs (goods) owned by others, other than those mentioned in 26(i), (ia), (ib), (ic), (ica), (id), (ii), (iia) and (iii) - Since the applicant has stated that their clients are registered persons under GST, the applicability of GST at the rate of 18%, in terms of serial No. 26(iv) of notification No. 11/2017-CT(R), as amended, does not arise.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v/s UOI [2007 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] held that the words in “relation to” and the words “with respect to” are no doubt words of wide amplitude but one has to keep in mind the context in which they are used. Hence, we find that serial No. 26(i)(b), reproduced supra, which states that services by way of job work, in relation to Textile and Textile products, falling under chapter 50 to 63 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, would only be available, if the job work is in relation/respect to textiles and textile products falling under chapter 50 to 63. Now, the applicant was asked to provide copies of invoice, during the course of personal hearing.

The invoice reflect the receipt of metallic film rolls through delivery challan dated 11.4.2025 from M/s. Gurukrupa Metalic on which the applicant after doing the job work of cutting the metallic film rolls, returned back the goods to M/s. Gurukrupa Metalic along with invoice No. 22/25-26 dated 18.4.2025 raising the job work charges. Nothing is mentioned in the delivery challan as to whether the goods supplied by M/s. Gurukrupa Mettalic is a textile and textile product falling under chapter 50 to 63 of CTA '75 The HSN of the metallic film rolls supplied by the principal is not mentioned. As the applicant has failed to establish that metallic film rolls, the item supplied by the principal is an item falling under textiles and textile products, they are not eligible for the benefit of serial No. 26(i)(b) of the notification, ibid.

The job work activity undertaken by the applicant would fall within the ambit of serial No. 26(id) & would be leviable to GST @ 12%. Incidentally, even in the invoice raised by the applicant, for collection of job charges, reproduced above, they are charging 12% GST.
2025 (7) TMI 382

Process amounting to manufacture - activity of peeling, chopping & packing of garlic - classification of peeled, chopped & packed garlic - falls under heading 07032000 or 20055900? - requirement to pay GST.

Whether the activity of peeling, chopping and packing of garlic amounts to manufacture? - HELD THAT:- In terms of section 95(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, ‘advance ruling’ means a decision provided by the Authority for Advance Ruling, to an applicant on matters or on questions specified in section 97(2), reproduced supra, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by an applicant. The question as to whether a particular process undertaken/proposed to be undertaken would amount to manufacture, does not find a mention under the seven matters listed at 97(2)(a), ibid. We, thus refrain from answering the said question.

Whether classification of peeled, chopped & packed garlic could fall under tariff heading 07032000 or 20055900? - HELD THAT:- Chapter heading 0703, relates to ‘Onions, shallots, garlic, leeks and other alliaceous vegetables, fresh or chilled’. However, ongoing through the explanatory notes in respect of the said HSN, it is forthcoming that the heading covers fresh or chilled alliaceous vegetables, of which garlic is one amongst them. The general notes of the said chapter clearly states that vegetables of the chapter may be whole, sliced, chopped, shredded, pulped, grated, peeled or shelled, wherein the term ‘chilled’, means that the temperature has been reduced, generally to around 0ºc, without the product being frozen. It further states that vegetables remain classified in the chapter even if put up in airtight containers. However, the product put up in the packing have been prepared or preserved otherwise than as provided for in the headings of this chapter are excluded.

No laboratory report, has been submitted by the applicant to substantiate the averment that the garlic, consequent to undergoing the process as shown in the flow diagram, does not remain fresh. However, contrary to the claim we find that the explanatory notes of chapter 07 states that the chapter covers vegetables, whether fresh chilled, frozen (uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water) provisionally preserved or dried (including dehydrated, evaporated or freeze dried); that the vegetables of this chapter may be whole, sliced, chopped, shredded, pulped, grated, peeled or shelled. The chapter note, includes peeled, chopped, sliced vegetable. It is found that the product of the applicant which is peeled and chopped garlic consequent to undergoing the process would therefore fall in 0703 only.

Peeled, chopped & packed garlic falls under HSN 07032000 - The applicant is not required to discharge GST since Peeled, chopped & packed garlic falls under HSN 07032000.
2025 (7) TMI 381

Eligibility for exemption as per serial No. 66(b)of the notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.6.2017 - transportation services provided to the students exclusively on behalf of the school wherein the applicant is charging fees from the students directly - catering services provided to the students exclusively on behalf of the school wherein the applicant is charging fees from the students directly - relevant section and rule under which refund of the tax paid on said exemption services in earlier years can be applied for.

Whether the applicant is eligible for exemption in terms of serial no. 66(b)(i) & (ii) of the notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 in respect of transportation and catering services provided to the students exclusively on behalf of the school wherein the applicant is recovering the charges directly from the students? - HELD THAT:- In terms of serial No. 66 (b)(i) of notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate), as reproduced supra, states that services provided to an educational institution, by way of transportation of students is exempt. The proviso further states that nothing contained in entry (b) shall apply to an educational institution other than an institution providing services by way of pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent.

The applicant themselves have mentioned that they are collecting the charges relating to the transportation and catering directly from the students. This was further admitted by the authorized representative during the course of personal hearing. This being the fact, the consideration towards the transportation and catering activity are received by the applicant from the students concerned and since no consideration is received by the school administration, it becomes clear that no services are rendered by the school to its students in relation to transportation and catering of students. Further as applicant is not receiving any payment from the school administration, no services are rendered to the school by the applicant, thereby ruling out any role of the school as far as the said transaction is concerned - the services provided by the applicant to the school students by way of transportation and catering of students cannot be considered as services provided to the school. Since the primary condition of the service having been provided to a school is not satisfied, the applicant is not eligible for exemption in terms of serial no. 66(b)(i) & (ii) of the notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 in respect of transportation and catering services provided to the students.

If the applicant is eligible for exemption as per entry no. 66(b)(i) & (ii), what is the relevant section and rule under which refund of the tax paid on said exemption services in earlier years can be applied for? - HELD THAT:- Since refund does not figure in any of the clauses under subsection 97(2), ibid, it is not intended to answer this question.
2025 (7) TMI 331

Demand of tax and penalty raised contrary to the SCN issued to the petitioner - beyond the scope of SCN - violation of Section 75(7) of GST Act - HELD THAT:- A perusal of Section 75(7) would reveal that Section 75 deals with general provisions relating to determination of tax and sub-section (7) specifically stipulates that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice and no demand shall be confirmed on the grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice.

Admittedly, in the present case, the show-cause notice merely indicates the amount of Rs. 4,80,527.36 as representing the tax, interest and penalty and the demand qua the three components has been raised at Rs. 24,40,363.10, which is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act.

Thus, on account of violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, the order impugned cannot be sustained - the order dated April 27, 2024 (Annexure-1) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file response to the show-cause notice and after providing opportunity of hearing, pass a fresh order in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.