1st Session - Assessment and Adjudication - by CA Rajiv Luthia Sir

“Assessment and Adjudication- 360-degree view”
FULL DAY GST SEMINAR

ORGANIZED BY
CONFEDERATION OF GST
PROFESSIONALS & INDUSTRIES (CGPI)
PRESENTED BY
RAJIV LUTHIA
AN INVESTMENT IN KNOWLEDGE PAYS THE BEST RETURN
25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA
COVERAGE
• SUMMON UNDER GST
• ASSESSMENT UNDER GST
• GST SCN
• GST APPEAL
25th May, 2024

CA RAJIV LUTHIA
SUMMONS

Proper Officer to issue
Summons to any person
whose attendance
considered necessary.
POWER TO
SUMMON To give evidence or
Procedure similar to ( Sec. 70 OF produce document in
provisions of CPC, 1908. THE CGST any inquiry.
ACT, 2017)
Inquiry deemed to be “judicial

Proceeding” u/s 193 & 228 of
the IPC.

• Section 2 (91)― “proper officer” in relation to any function to be
performed under this Act, means the Commissioner or the officer
of the central tax who is assigned that function by the
Commissioner in the Board
• “Superintendent of Central Tax” is assigned functions as proper

officer in relation to Section 70 (1) vide Circular no. 3/3/2017
dated 5th July, 2017

CBIC Instruction No. 03/2022-23 dated 17th August, 2022
on GUIDANCE ON ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS
Sr. No. Particulars
1. Power to issue summons generally exercised by Superintendents, even higher officers may issue
summons. Superintendents should issue summons only after written permission of Officer not
below rank of DC/AC with reasons , recorded in writing.
2. In case written permission not obtained, telephonic permission must be obtained and same
should reduced in writing at the earliest opportunity.
3. For every summon issued, the appearance/non-appearance of the summoned must be recorded
and placed in file.
4. Summon should indicate the name of the offender, against whom the case is investigated, so that
the recipient has understanding of whether he is summoned as accused, co-accused or witness.
5. No summons should be issued for calling statutory documents which are available on the GST
Portal.
6. Summons should not be issued to senior management officials like MD/ CEO/CFO/ similar officers
in the first instance. They should be summoned only when there is clear indication of their
involvement in decision which has resulted in revenue leakage.

CBIC Instruction No. 03/2022-23 dated 17th August, 2022 on GUIDANCE
ON ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS
Sr. No. Particulars
7. Board Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST dated 5th November, 2019 warrants mandatory quoting of DIN
on communication issued by CBIC officers. Summons Format is prescribed in Board Circular No.
128/47/2019-GST dated 23rd December, 2019.
8. The summoning officer must be present at time and date for which summon is issued. If not, then
same must be informed in writing or orally.
9. All summoned persons bound to appear. Exceptions are ‘women who by tradition don’t appear in
public’ or ‘privileged persons’. The exemptions u/s 132 & 133 of CPC must be considered.
10. Issuance of repeated summons without ensuring service of the same must be avoided.

Sec 136 : Relevancy of Statements under certain circumstances
✓ A statement signed by a person in response to the summons u/s 70 during
enquiry/proceedings under the Act is relevant, for proving in prosecution of offence, the
truth of facts which it contains in following situations:-
• If person making statement is dead/untraceable, or is incapable of giving evidence, or

kept out of the way by adverse party, or whose presence cannot be obtained without
delay or expense which is considered unreasonable by the court;
• When the person giving statement is examined as witness before the court, and the
court is of opinion that the circumstances of the case warrant that such statement
should be admitted as evidence.

YASHO INDUSTRIES LTD VS UOI – 2021 (6) TMI 918 GUJRAT HC
• Definition of 'proper officer’ -Section 2(91), 'proper officer' in relation to any function to be performed
under CGST Act means the Commissioner or the officer of the Central Tax, who is assigned that function
by the Commissioner in the Board –
• The respondent No.3 (DGGI) is a proper officer in relation to the function to be performed under CGST
Act as contemplated under Section 2(91), and as such, was entitled to issue summons under Section 70
of the CGST Act in connection with the inquiry initiated against the petitioner.
• The Board has assigned the officers to perform the function as proper officers in relation to various
Sections of CGST Act and Rules made thereunder by issuing the Circular.
• The question of issuing Notification for delegation of powers by the Commissioner as contemplated
under Section 167 of the CGST Act does not arise.

SUMMONS
• Every inquiry shall be deemed to be a “judicial proceeding”

within the meaning of Section 193 & 228 of IPC, 1860.
• Section 193 of IPC………Punishment with imprisonment for a term

up to 7 years & also fine for intentionally giving false evidence or
fabrication of false evidence in any stage of judicial proceeding.
• Section 228 of IPC……….Punishment with simple imprisonment

for a term up to 6 months or fine upto Rs.1,000/- or both on
person intentionally offering any insult, or causing any
interruption to any public servant while such public servant is
sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding.

SUMMONS
• Section 174 of IPC……….Non attendance in response to summons

is an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 6 months &
fine up to Rs.1,000/-
• Documents required to be produced must be specifically stated in

the summons

FEW IMPORTANT DECISIONS.......SUMMONS
• Hon’ble Delhi HC……..K.T.Advani Vs State (1987) 30 ELT 390…The

person has no right to get copies of his statement at the stage of
investigation. However, he can keep note of his statement.
• Hon’ble SC……...Poolpandi etc. vs. Superintendent CE (1992) 60 ELT

24……..Person being interrogated is not an accused nor can he plead
that there is possibility of his being made an accused in future
hence he has no right to ask for presence of lawyer during inquiry.
However, interrogating officer may permit, if he deems fit.
FEW IMPORTANT DECISIONS........SUMMONS
• Hon’ble Mumbai CESTAT….Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE (2006) 193

ELT 518….Disclosure of facts & information given while
recording the statement & admitting liability can also be
challenged at later date by the assessee. There can not be
estoppels in the matters of taxation.

GST ASSESSEMENT

ASSESSMENT Vs. AUDIT Vs. ADJUDICATION
CHAPTER - XV
CHAPTER - XII (ASSESSMENT) – CHAPTER - XIII
(DEMAND & RECOVERY) Sec 73
Sec 59 to 64 (AUDIT) – Sec 65 & 66
to 84
Sec -2(11) – Determination of • Section 2(13) – Audit :

tax liability & includes examination of records,
returns and other
documents……… • Adjudication
• Self Assessment;
• Re-assessment; • SCN u/s 73 or 74 with
• Provisional Assessment; specific allegation
• Summary assessment &
• Best judgement assessment • Followed by ORDER
• Result into AUDIT REPORT
• SCN issued based on audit

• May Result into ORDER
observations /paras

ASSESSMENT
Section 2(11) “Assessment” means means determination of tax liability under this Act and includes self-
assessment, re-assessment, provisional assessment, summary assessment and best judgment assessment;
Assessment
Self Scrutiny of Assessment of

Assessment Returns unregistered
S. 59 S. 61 persons
S. 63
Provisional Assessment
Assessment Summary
of non-filers
S. 60 assessment in
of returns
certain special cases
S. 62
S. 64
SCRUTINY OF RETURNS- Sec. 61
PROPER OFFICER MAY
SCRUTINIZE THE RETURNS & RELATED PARTICULARS SO FURNISHED
DISCREPANCIES
ISSUE NOTICE IN FORM FORM GST ASMT- 10 & WITH IN 30 DAYS CALL FOR
EXPLANATION
YES REPLY IN FORM GST ASMT – 11 NO

FOUND SATIFACTORY
ASK FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION
NO ACTION & PROPER
BY ISSUING DRC 01A
OFFICER TO PASS
ORDER IN FORM GST
ASMT - 12 TAKEN NOT TAKEN
No Action • Audit or Special Audit

• Search ,Seizure etc.,
25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA • Proceed to issue SCN
PARAMETER ON WHICH GST NOTICE ARE ISSUED
Parameter Particulars
No.
69 In-eligible ITC claimed from non-genuine taxpayers (NGTPs) whose RC is

canceled ab-initio
70 Excess outward tax in GSTR-1 compared to GSTR-9 /GSTR-3B

71 Excess Outward tax in E-Way Bills Compared to GSTR-3B
72 In-eligible ITC claimed from GSTR-3B Non-filers
73 Excess ITC claimed in GSTR-9/3B which is not confirmed in GSTR-2A or 8A of
GSTR-9

Parameter Particulars
No.
74 In-eligible ITC claimed from RC is canceled suppliers
75 Less turnover is shown in GSTR-1 compared to GSTR-8 (TCS)
76 Less turnover is shown in GSTR-3B compared to GSTR-7 (TDS)
77 Less RCM liability disclosed in GSTR 9/3B/4 than shown by suppliers in
GSTR-1
78 ITC claims after the last date of availing of ITC as per section 16(4) GSTR-
3B

Parameter No. Particulars

79 ITC on purchase invoices uploaded by the supplier in GSTR-1 filed after the
last date of availing -section 16(4)
80 Interest on delayed payments made with GSTR 3B
81 Excess IGST on imports shown in GSTR_6E vs. ICEGATE data
82 Excess ISD ITC availed in GSTR9_6G Vs GSTR 2A_ISD
83 Excess RCM ITC GSTR9_6CDF than liability shown in GSTR 9_4G

GST ADJUDICATION - SCN

Determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously
refunded
Section 73: Applicable in case of non-payment or Section 74: Applicable in case of non-payment or
short payment of tax without fraud or willful- short payment of tax with fraud or willful-
misstatement. misstatement
Proper officer to issue a Show Cause Notice in both cases

Mere statement containing the non-payment or short payment can be served for subsequent periods
instead of detailed show cause notice, only if the grounds raised are identical to the ones raised in the
previous year.
Time limit for the proper officer to issue notice Time limit for the proper officer to issue notice
along with statement of computation– at least 3 along with statement of computation – at least 6
months prior to issuance of order months prior to issuance of order
Time limit for the proper officer to issue an order Time limit for the proper officer to issue an order
is within three years from the due date of filing of is within 5 years from the due date of filing of
annual return or 3 years of date of erroneous annual return or 5 years of date of erroneous
refund . refund .

Determination of tax not paid or short paid or
erroneously refunded
Section 73: Section 74:
Show Cause Notice not to be issued where:-

Voluntary payment of Tax + Interest as per section Voluntary payment of Tax + Interest as per section
50 made before issue of notice either 50 + Penalty (i.e 15% of tax) made before issue of
• As per own ascertainment or; notice either
• As per the ascertainment of the proper officer; • As per own ascertainment or;
• As per the ascertainment of the proper officer;
However amount paid as per the ascertainment of the defaulter falls short, the Department can issue a
notice for the tax still payable.

Determination of tax not paid or short paid or
erroneously refunded
Section 73: Section 74:
Case where all proceedings are deemed to be concluded after issue of SCN:
On Payment of Tax + Interest as per section 50 Payment of Tax + Interest as per section 50 +
made within 30 days of issue of notice. No penalty penalty (i.e. 25% of tax) made within 30 days of
leviable/payable issue of notice
Payment of Tax + Interest as per section 50 + Payment of Tax + Interest as per section 50 +
Penalty (10% of tax or Rs.10,000 which ever is Penalty (i.e 50% of tax) made within 30 days of
higher made after 30 days of issue of notice communication of order

General Provision relation to determination of Tax – Sec. - 75
• Expression “Suppression” shall mean non-declaration of facts or information
which a taxable person is required to declare in the return, statement, report or
any other document furnished under this Act or the rules made thereunder, or
failure to furnish any information on being asked for, in writing, by the proper
officer
• Where the service of a notice or an issue of the order has been stayed by an
order of a Court or Tribunal, such period of stay shall be excluded from the
period of 5 or 3 years accordingly.
• When a notice has been issued under 74(1) but the charges of fraud,
suppression and misstatement of facts to evade tax are not sustainable or not
established, the tax is to be determined only for the normal period of 3 years.
• Where any order is required to be issued in pursuance of direction of Tribunal/ Court,

such order shall be issued within 2 years from date of communication of such order
• Opportunity of personal hearing has to be granted when requested in writing by the

person chargeable with tax or where any adverse decision is proposed to be taken against
the person.
• Personal hearing can be adjourned when sufficient cause is shown in writing. However,
such adjournment can be granted for a maximum of 3 times

• The relevant facts and basis of the decision shall be set out in the order.
• The amount of tax + interest + penalty mentioned in order shall not be more than what is mentioned in the
notice and the grounds shall not go beyond what is mentioned in the notice.
• When the Tribunal/ Court/ Appellate authority modifies the amount of tax, correspondingly interest and
penalty shall also be modified.
• Interest shall be payable in all cases whether specifically mentioned or not.
• If the order is not issued within the time limits of 3 or 5 years then the proceedings shall be deemed to be
concluded
• Where any amount of tax in accordance with a return furnished under section 39 remains unpaid, either
wholly or partly, or any amount of interest payable on such tax remains unpaid, the same shall be
recovered under the provisions of section 79
POINTS TO BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE DEALING ADJUDICATION/LITIGATION
Particulars Example
Identifying specific allegation made in SCN OIDAR vs. Intermediary
Legal provisions not sited in REPLY Reply states that ASSESSEE is GTA and not
liable to pay GST without elaborating legal
provision and relevant exemption/ RCM
notification. Eg GTA service to agriculture
produce exempted entry 21 of NOTF. 12/2017
Identify technical errors while replying to SCN issued to specific GSTN only when multiple
SCN registration in same state. No need to deal with
transactions of other GSTN of same state.
Similarly restrict reply to period of SCN
Documentary evidence in support of e.g. Manpower Supply Agreement, works
contentions
25th May, 2024 contract
CA RAJIV LUTHIA related tenders, work orders etc.
POINTS TO BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE DEALING ADJUDICATION/LITIGATION
Particulars Remark
Detailed write up as against brief reply • Nature of business

• Place of business
• Sequence of event related to litigation
• Certified copy of evidence
• Nature of transactions
• Legal provisions
• Case laws, circular, notifications
Communications in writing duly Not advisable to submit documents
acknowledged (stamped by officer) without acknowledging same
Date of communication of notice/Order
( preserve Postal cover etc.)
Verify the DIN of documents like OIO/ OIA
FEW IMPORTANT
DECISIONS

SUPPRESSION OF FACTS . LARGER PERIOD CANNOT BE INVOKED.
HON’BLE SC IN CASE OF NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY VS. CCE, AP (2008) 9 STR 31.
• No suppression of facts, when all relevant facts are in knowledge of authorities when
first SCN issued.
• While issuing second and third SCN on same/similar facts, there cannot be allegation of
suppression of facts by assessee as entire facts were in knowledge of authorities.
• Demands and penalty dropped for 2nd and subsequent SCN.

SCN WAS NULL AND VOID IN ABSENCE BASIC INGREDIENTS
GUJARAT CONTAINERS LTD. VS CCE (2003) TIOL 257. MUMBAI CESTAT
➢ When the adjudicating authority merely directed the appellant to

work out ST payable & pay the same with interest without
quantifying the demand, SCN was held to be null & void. SCN
should indicate:
✓ The specific allegation against the assessee
✓ The quantum of tax/duty sought to be recovered for period covered
✓ The basis on which tax/duty is payable
✓ SCN must be served upon person chargeable to tax/duty
✓ SCN must be issued by officer empowered.
CA RAJIV LUTHIA 25th May, 2024
SCN for MISMATCH BETWEEN GSTR-3B & GSTR-2A WAS VAGUE
M/s NKAS SERVICES PVT LTD…JHARKHAND HIGH COURT (2021-TIOL-2079)
Facts of the Case –:

• SCN issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes u/s 74 of the JGST Act, 2017 for the tax
period July to September, 2020
• SCN has been challenged by the petitioner along with the consequential challenge to summary
of SCN in FORM DRC-01 on the following grounds :
– SCN is vague…….
– SCN is without jurisdiction
– Proceeding initiated without service of FORM GST-ASMT-10 is void ab-initio
Decision :
• SCN is issued in a format without even striking out any irrelevant portions and without stating
the contraventions committed by the petitioner i.e. whether its actuated by reason of fraud or
any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts in order to evade tax.

Decision :
• In absence of clear charges u/s 74 which the person so alleged is required to answer, the noticee is bound
to be denied proper opportunity to defend itself.
• This would entail violation of principles of natural justice which is a well-recognized exception for invocation
of writ jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy.
• A summary of SCN as issued in Form GST DRC-01 in terms of Rule 142(1) of the JGST Rules, 2017 cannot
substitute the requirement of a proper SCN
• It is submitted that the expression used in Section 73/74 requires proper application of mind by the
proper officer. The expression 'appears to the proper officer' has not to be a casual act but should show
full application of mind by the 'proper officer

Decision :
• Upon perusal of GST DRC-01 issued to the petitioner, although it has been mentioned that
there is mismatch between GSTR-3B and 2A, but that is not sufficient as the foundational
allegation for issuance of notice under Section 74 is totally missing and the notice continues
to be vague.
• Impugned notice and the summary of SCN in Form GST DRC-01 are quashed

EXTENTION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO SCN –
TULIP GLOBAL PVT LTD VS. CCE, JAIPUR 2015 (2) TMI 93 – New Delhi
Adjudicating Authority passed OIO without responding ( i.e. accepting or rejecting requests for extensions)
• Held : If an assessee has been causing appearance before the Adjudicating Authority on
each and every date of hearing so fixed by him, and is making a request for extension of
time, the Adjudicating Authority is under legal obligation to respond to said request
either by extending period or by rejecting the request.
• If the Adjudicating Authority was of the view that the appellants are intentionally delaying
the proceedings, he could have rejected the request and made the same known to the
assessee at the time of hearing on 24-10-2013.
• Non-communication of the decision, on the said requests, keeps an assessee in dark, who
may entertain a view that such request stands granted by the Adjudicating Authority and
he would file the reply within the extended period
MIS-MATCH BETWEEN GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B and CLAIM FOR SUCH ITC
SUNCRAFT ENEGRY PVT LTD -- CALCUTTA HC -- 2023(8) TMI 174
Allegation was that supplier has not disclosed INVOICE in GSTR 1 & hence the appellant is
not eligible to avail credit of ITC as per Section 16(2) of WBGST Act, 2017. PROPER OFFICER
presumed that tax charged for such supply was not been actually paid to the Government.
• Held :The SCN does not allege that appellant was not in possession of a tax invoice issued by
supplier registered under the Act. There is no denial of the fact that the appellant has received the
goods or services or both
• In reply to SCN submitted by appellant, he had clearly stated that they are in possession of tax
invoice, they received the goods and services or both and payment has been made to supplier of
goods or services or both. The reason for denying ITC is on the ground that detail of supplies is
not reflecting in GSTR 1 of supplier. Appellant pointed out that they are in possession of valid tax
invoice and payment details to supplier was substantiated by producing bank statement.

MIS-MATCH BETWEEN GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B and CLAIM FOR SUCH ITC
SUNCRAFT ENEGRY PVT LTD --- CALCUTTA HC ---- 2023(8) TMI 174
• The Department without resorting to any action against the Supplier who is the selling dealer has
ignored the tax invoices produced by the appellant as well as the bank statement to substantiate
that they have paid the price for the goods and services rendered as well as the tax payable there
on, the action of the department was arbitrary
• Therefore, before directing the appellant to reverse the ITC and remit the same to government,
the department ought to have taken action against the selling dealer and unless and until the
department is able to bring out the exceptional case where there has been collusion
between the appellant and the fourth respondent or where the fourth respondent is
missing or the fourth respondent has closed down its business or the fourth respondent
does not have any assets and such other contingencies, straight away the first respondent
was not justified in directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit availed by them.

MIS-MATCH BETWEEN GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B
MADRAS HC - D Y Beathel Enterprises Vs. STO 2021 (3) TMI 1020
• It was held that one of the conditions for SECTION 16(2) is that assessee must have
received the goods and the tax charged in respect of its supply, must have been actually
paid to the Government either in cash or through utilization of ITC, admissible in respect
of the said supply. Therefore, if the tax had not reached the kitty of the Government,
then liability may have to be eventually borne by one party, either the seller or buyer.
• Department first have to recover the amount of Tax from supplier & if same could not
be recovered from seller than only buyer will be responsible. Department has to
imitate action against seller first & without any action against seller, department
cannot recover Taxes from buyer.

DIN – WHETHER MANDATORY
• Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST dated 5th Nov, 2019 ----- Quoting of DIN is mandatory in
communication made to taxpayer
• The Board in exercise of its power under section 168(1) of the CGST Act, 2017/ Section
37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 directs that no search authorization, summons,
arrest memo, inspection notices and letters issued in the course of any enquiry shall be
issued by any officer under the Board to a taxpayer or any other person, on or after the
8th day of November. 2019 without a computer generated Document Identification
Number (DIN) being duly quoted prominently in the body of such communication.

DIN – WHETHER MANDATORY
• Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23rd Dec, 2019 ----- Quoting of DIN
• The Board has now directed that electronic generation and quoting of Document
Identification Number (DIN) shall be done in respect of all communications (including e-
mails) sent to tax payers and other concerned persons by any office of the Central
Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) across the country.
• Instructions contained in above Para would come into effect from 24.12.2019.

GUIDELINE with respect to LEGAL ISSUES pertaining
to return scrutiny for tax period for periods 2017-18
and 2018-19
(Issued By Commissioner of MAHARASHTRA state Tax vide

Internal No. 02A of 2022 DATED 25th February, 2022 )

• Guidelines for technical issues clarified vide Internal
Circular
• From an examination of various issues, it is seen that these

issues cropped up due to bonafide error committed by
taxpayer in their compliance
• This circular applies to scrutiny of tax returns for period

2017-18 and 2018-19

Issue 1 – B2B outward supply wrongly reported as B2C. Upon request from recipient
mistake corrected and transaction rectified as B2B in subsequent GSTR 1. However,
assessee has not reduced corresponding B2C supply. This lead to excess Liability as per
GSTR 1 compared to GSTR 3B
Clarification
The proper officers may –
• Obtain the transaction wise details of outward supplies from taxpayer for the period
under scrutiny and reconcile it with category wise outward supplies reported in
GSTR-1 of the corresponding period.
• Identify the transactions reported in B to B and B to C category.
• Figure out the transactions which have been shifted to B to B from its original B to
C. Take on record the details of GSTR-1 in which such shifting had been done.

Issue 2 – Due to typographic error the details of outward supply in Table 4, 5, 6, 7 or 11 of Form
GSTR 1, the turnover and liability is reflected at higher amount as compared to GSTR 3B.
Clarification
The proper officers may –
• Obtain the transaction wise details of outward supplies from taxpayer for period under scrutiny
and reconcile it with category wise outward supplies reported in GSTR-1 of the corresponding
period.
• Identify the category of difference eg. B to B, B to C, Exports or adjustment to advances.
• In case of B to B transactions, take undertaking of recipient that he had not availed excess ITC
on account of said errors committed by the supplier.
• In case of export, verify it with turnover of export considered while granting the refund.

Issue 3 - Difference in ITC claim of GSTR-3B and ITC available in GSTR-2A of
taxpayer. under scrutiny on account of:
• Supplier has reported B2B supplies as B2C supplies in GSTR-1 and same could
not amend till expiry of time limit. Therefore these transactions not appearing
in GSTR-2A of recipients
• Few suppliers have reported B2B supplies against GSTIN of some other
taxpayer instead of actual recipient.
• Supplier had missed reporting of B to B transactions in GSTR-1
• Supplier had reported B to B transactions taxable under forward charge in

Table 4B-RCM GSTR-1 instead of Table 4A.
However, in above scenarios ITC conditions u/s 16 are met.

Clarification – The proper officer may:
• In cases difference in ITC claim (CGST+SGST or IGST) per supplier is

2.5 lakh or more, claimant to obtain certification from CA certifying
the output transactions and tax paid.
• In cases difference in ITC claim (CGST+SGST or IGST) per supplier is

below 2.5 lakh, the claimant to obtain ledger confirmation of
supplier along with his certification.

Issue 4 - The proviso to section 16(4) inserted vide RoD ( Removal of
Difficulty) order dated 31/12/2018 for FY 2017-18. RECIPIENTS are
referring to strict interpretation that this pre-requisite is applicable to
recipients who have claimed ITC by filing GSTR-3B after the specified date
(after due date of September, 2018 return till due date of March, 2019
return).
Clarification : The pre-condition that the GSTR-1 should have been filed by
supplier till due date of filing GSTR-1 of March 2019 is only applicable to
taxpayers who have claimed ITC during the extended period i.e. after due
date of September, 2018 return till due date of March, 2019 return.

Issue 5 - B2B transactions in GSTR-1, mistakenly reported as transactions
liable under RCM i.e., reported by supplier in Table 4B instead of Table
4A. This error is sole cause of mis-match of liability of recipient.
Clarification : Both type of transactions (forward charge and reverse

charge) reported by supplier in GSTR 1 are being auto-populated in the
same table of GSTR-2A with flagging as to whether it attracts RCM or not.
Proper officer upon receipt of reply from taxpayer under scrutiny, may
verify whether supplier has paid tax on such transactions which have
been wrongly reported in Table 4B of GSTR-1.

Issue 6 - In few cases, ineligible ITC, pointed out in ASMT-10 was already
reversed by taxpayer in return of subsequent period. However, format of GSTR-
3B is not so exhaustive & no separate column is provided for such reversal.
Hence amount of ITC reversed for previous period is not legible from return .
Clarification : In case taxpayer replies with reference to specific return period,

then calculation of reversal in table 4 (B) (2) of that specified return period along
with transaction list should be obtained from and verified with ITC claim,
reversal, other reversal, etc.
Alternatively, it can be verified from DRC-03 filed.

Case Study

CASE STUDY - 1
• XYZ Ltd has purchased Goods worth Rs. 1,00,000/- plus GST from
ABC Ltd on 20th April, 2024 and made the Payment Rs. 1,18,000/-
Immediately on same day.
• ABC Ltd file his GSTR 1 by showing the above purchase under HEAD B2C
Instead of B2B.
• XYZ Ltd availed the credit of ITC amounting to Rs. 18,000/- in GSTR 3B.
• Return of XYZ Ltd were selected for scrutinized for F.Y 2024-25 in Dec, 2025
CASE STUDY - 1
• The Proper officer pointed out the mismatch between GSTR 2B and GSTR 3B and asked XYZ
Ltd to reverse the ITC of Rs. 18,000/- not appearing in GSTR 2B.
• XYZ Ltd immediately in month of Jan, 2026 obtained ledger confirmation and CA Certificate
from ABC Ltd stating that erroneously ABC Ltd has shown the sales under head B2C instead
of B2B.
• The proper officer ignored the ledger confirmation and stated that section 16(2)(aa) has not
be complied therefore ITC will not be eligible to XYZ Ltd?
• XYZ Ltd seeks your opinion?

CASE STUDY - 1
• Conditions laid down in law should be such which a prudent business is able to comply
• Impossible to perform cannot be expected from tax payer
• By giving confirmation/certificate of CA, assessee complied/proved that GST was paid to

govt
• DOCTRINE OF IMPOSSIBILITY
• SC in case of State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC 639], applied this
maxim and held that thus, where the law creates a duty or a charge and the party is disabled
to perform it without any fault on his part and has no control over it, the law will in general
excuse him.
APPEALS

Relevant Sections - Appeal
– Sec 107(1) - Appeal by aggrieved person
– Sec 107(2) & (3) – Appeal by department
– Sec 107(4) – Power to condone delay
– Sec 107(5) & (6) – Pre-deposit
– Sec 107(8) – Hearing opportunity
– Sec 107(9) – Power to grant adjournment
– Sec 107(11) – Passing of order and restriction on remand
– Sec 112 – Appeal to Appellate Tribunal

Important GST Forms in Appeal Proceedings
– Form GST APL 01 – Appeal to Appellate Authority
– Form GST APL 02 – Acknowledgment of filing appeal (issued by Appellate Authority)
– Form GST APL 05 – Appeal to Appellate Tribunal
– Form GST APL 04 – Summary of demand after issue of Order by the Appellate
Authority, Revisional Authority, Tribunal or Court

CASE STUDY - 2
- M/s ABC was served with GST SCN – DRC 01
on 13th January, 2024.
- Reply to SCN filed on 9th Feb, 2024
- After PH, Ld. Assistant Commissioner passed Order upholding demand as

alleged in SCN
- Order dated 1st March, 2024 served via email on 18th March, 2024.

- Order was also sent by post on 18th March which
was received by M/s ABC on 25th March, 2024.
- The order was uploaded on portal on 20th April, 2024?
ISSUES:
- Appeal against said order lie before which authority ??
- Whether appeal to filled manually or electronically?
- Due date for filing the Appeal??

APPEAL TO 1st APPELLATE AUTHORITY - Sec. 107
Person aggrieved by order of adjudicating authority of rank
- Additional Commissioner - Deputy Commissioner;

or - Assistant Commissioner;
- Joint Commissioner - Superintendent
Appeal to
Appeal to
any officer not below the rank of Joint

Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner (Appeals)
within 3 months of date of communication of order
• In instant case, appeal lies before officer not below rank of Joint commissioner ( Appeals)

Service of Notice/Order - Sec 169
➢ Tendering / courier to
The The Manager / To a person To any adult

Addressee Taxable authorized regularly member of
person representative / employed by family residi
Advocate / Tax him in ng with the
practitioner holding connection taxable
authority to appear with business person
in the proceedings
➢ Registered post/speed post/courier - WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE
- to person for whom it is intended or at his last known place of

- his authorized representative business or residence

Service of Notice/Order - Sec 169
➢ Registered E-mail
➢ Uploading on common portal
➢ Publication in a newspaper
➢ Affixing it in some conspicuous place / on the notice board of the

office of the concerned office
✓Service by Any one of the 6 modes prescribed
✓Wide coverage as compared to Section 37C of Central Excise Act,

Date of communication sec 169 viz-a-viz Rule 108
– W.e.f. 4th August,2023…….Rule 108(1) An appeal to Appellate Authority u/s 107 (1) shall be
filed in FORM GST APL-01, along with relevant documents, either electronically OR otherwise
as may be notified by the Commissioner OR manually when appeal cannot be filled online due
to non availability of order on portal.
– ODISHA state government vide Notification No. CCT-PEI-POL-0155-2021-4450/CT & GST

dated March 10, 2023 has issued guidelines regarding Filing of manual Appeal before 1st
Appellate Authority.

• Hon’ble Gujarat HC in case of Gujarat State Petronet Ltd V/s UOI 2020 (9) TMI 427 held that Filing of
appeal and uploading of the order are intertwined activities. The order is required to be uploaded online
so that appeal can be filed electronically as per the mandate of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
However, there is no provision or procedure to file the appeal manually - In such circumstances, there
was no failure on part of the petitioner to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as
the period of limitation did not start till the order passed by the adjudicating authority was uploaded on
the GST portal.
• This decision lost it’s relevance after amendment made to CGST Rule 108(1) w.e.f. 4th August,2023

Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh HC in case of Navya foods Pvt ltd v/s UOI 2022 (5) TMI 695 held that
“The appeal is required to be filed in electronic mode and any other mode if prescribed by way
of a notification. There is nothing on record to show that any notification was issued prescribing
any other mode by which an appeal could be filed. Therefore, the argument of petitioner that
the time period for filing appeal would start only when the order is uploaded in GST portal
cannot be brushed aside. “
• This decision lost it’s relevance after amendment made to CGST Rule 108(1) w.e.f. 4th August,2023

Order passed by Adjudicating Authority
UPLOADED on PORTAL Not UPLOADED on PORTAL and order

intimated through POST/E-mail etc.
State in which State in which

File Appeal ELETRONICALLY on Commissioner has Commissioner has
common portal within 3 months notified Manually notified not yet
from date of communication of filing of Appeal notified filing of
said order (i.e. 3 months from date Appeal
of upload on common portal)
File Appeal Rule 108 (1) – Appeal to be

Manually within 3 filed Electronically. Order
month from is not uploaded, file appeal
communication of manually as per
order as per amendment of 4th
Notification issued August,2023

Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh HC in case of SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA Vs. State of AP 2021 (4) TMI 498 held that it is
true that Rule 26(1) specifies that all applications including the appeals which are required to be submitted under the
provisions of these Rules shall be so submitted electronically with a digital signature certificate or through e-signature or
verified by any other mode of signature or verification as notified by the Chief Commissioner - So far as verification is
concerned, Notification No.6/2017-CT dated 19.06.2017 was issued by the G.O.I. MOF, Department of Revenue, CBIC,
stating that the mode of verification for the purpose of Rule 26(1) is
(i) Aadhar based electronic verification code (EVC) ; or
(ii) (ii) Bank account based one time password (OTP).
Thus apparently there is a discrepancy between Rule 108(1) and (2) with regard to the manner of filing the appeal and
other documents. In view of the discrepancy, the benefit must go to the subject as it is a tax law.

Observation of Court:
The words “electronically” and “otherwise” are co-related with the two conjunctions i.e., “either” and “or”.
Grammatically, these two conjunctions are used in co-relation with some words to indicate the alternativity or choice
between the two persons, things, or events. In the instant case, the word “electronically” is prefixed with the
conjunction “either” and the word “otherwise” is prefixed with the conjunction “or”. From this usage, what can be
deduced is that the mode of filing is a choice between electronic and other form (usually, manual form), as may be
notified by the Chief Commissioner. Since admittedly notification is yet to be given by the Chief Commissioner, appeal
can be filed in either manner. The mandate of the word “shall” in Rule 108(1) applies to Form GST APL-01 but not to the
word “electronically”. In my view, if the word “shall” was intended to govern the word “electronically” also, the word
“either” would not have been posited immediately before the word “electronically” because the phrases “shall
electronically” and “either electronically” are oxymorons

SERVICE OF ORDER - DEEMING PROVISION
Section 169(2) and (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that an Order shall be DEEMED to have been SERVED on the
date of its tender or normal period taken for such tender to be completed, unless proved to the contrary.
(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the
date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1).
(3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post,
it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such
post in transit unless the contrary is proved.
No such deeming provision existed in earlier service tax & excise regime.
Section 169 (1) ---- Served……..v/s …Section 169(3)---- received

Case Study – 3
- Case of M/S. POOR was selected for scrutiny & ASMT 10, DRC 01A and SCN in Form DRC 01 were
uploaded on portal.
- No reply was filled in stipulated time, hence Order was passed ex-parte and uploaded on portal on 5th
August, 2023
- However, M/S. POOR was not aware of any such proceedings initiated against him
- M/S. POOR thereafter received a recovery notice 15th February, 2024 and bank was attached for
recovery. This is when Mr. Poor came to know about such Order passed against him.

Case Study – 3
- M/S POOR filed Appeal manually before Commissioner
Appeals on 20th March, 2024
- M/S. POOR received PH notice requiring to explain as to why Appeal should not be rejected on ground that
it was filled beyond time-line?
- M/S. POOR seeks your advice

Case Study 3 - POWER TO CONDON DELAY IN FILLING APPEAL
• Section 107(1) - Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or SGST Act or the
UTGST Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed
within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.
• Section 107(4) - The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as
the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.
• Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963

5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.—Any appeal or any application, other than an
application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may
be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had
sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Case Study 3 -POWER TO CONDON DELAY IN FILLING APPEAL
• Hon’ble SC in case of SINGH ENTERPRISES 2007 (12) TMI 11 has held that The CCE (Appeals) as also the
Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the
permissible period, provided under the Statute. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature
intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of
60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal.
• Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized on certain decisions, more particularly, ITC case (supra)
to contend that the HC and this Court in appropriate cases condoned the delay on sufficient cause being
shown.
• Sufficient cause is an expression which is found in various statutes. It essentially means as adequate or
enough. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for
delay caused in taking steps. The cause for delay in filling instant appeal has no acceptable value
considering facts.

• Hon’ble DELHI CESTAT.. JAGDISH ISPAT PVT LTD 2020 (2) TMI 1008 held that unless and until there is a
statutory mandate of extending the prescribed period to a particular period/number of days that the
Section 5 of Limitation Act will be applicable.
• Section 29 of Limitation Act reiterate the same position that even for special laws in absence of specific
provision for extending the prescribed time but for a particular limit that Section 4 to 24 of the
limitations Act only will be applicable.
• Commissioner (Appeals) had no option but to dismiss the appeal being time barred as the delay was more
than 30 days. But keeping in view, the power of this Tribunal and that the delay is attributable to the
Counsel of the appellant that the said delay is hereby condoned.

• Hon’ble DELHI CESTAT .. SHAMBHU SYNTHETICS P LTD 2021 (4)TMI 118 has held Hon SC has categorically
held that any delay beyond extended period of 30 days after expiry of normal period of 60 days, cannot be
condoned since Statue does not permit & the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act would not
apply.
• Decision of Hon’ble SC-SINGH ENTERPRISES is binding. The decision of Tribunal in JAGDISH ISPAT, does not
lay down good law. Tribunal does not have any power, much less discretionary power, to condone any
delay beyond extended period of 30 days after the expiry of the normal period of 60 days.
• M/S. ALBERT & COMPANY P. LTD. VS THE CST [2014 (3) TMI 655 - MADRAS HC it has been specifically
held by the Hon’ble HC, while interpreting Section 85(3) ibid, that the Tribunal has no power or authority
to extend the period of limitation prescribed by the statute for entertaining the appeal.

• Hon’ble MUMBAI CESTAT in case of TNET MESSAGING SERVICES P LTD. 2023 (3) TMI 891 has held that it is well
settled that once the period of limitation expired as prescribed u/s. 85(3) ibid neither the Tribunal nor the first
appellate authority has power to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period.
• Hon’ble Allahabad HC in case of SHAILENDRA EAT UDYOG 2019 (1) TMI 1418 while allowing the
hearing of WRIT has accepted the argument of Ld. Counsel that that if the remedy of appeal is held to be non-
existant, still jurisdiction of the writ Court against the original order dated 03.12.2018 may not be ousted
• Hon’ble AP HC…S.A. IRON & METAL 2023 (8) TMI 577 has held that While considering application for
condonation of delay, it is not the length of delay, but cause for delay which would be paramount consideration. If
the cause shown as indicated U/S 107(4) of the act, such delay deserves to be condoned irrespective of the
length of the delay. It does not mean that ld Commissioner(Appeals) can condone delay beyond condonable
period that is 1 month after expiry of 3 months. The right of appeal which is created under statute is substantive
right of party that cannot be denied by taking pedantic view.

• Hon’ble Mumbai CESTAT in case of VISHAL BUILDCON VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST &
CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-II 2024 (3) TMI 352 has held that The maximum period within which the
Commissioner (Appeals) can entertain an appeal before him is three months. As in the present case the
appeal has been filed by the appellants beyond the prescribed maximum period of three months, there is
no legal provision under which the same could be obtained by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS even though dismissed the
appeal filed by the party, however had held that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and
the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with the jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond
the permissible as provided under the respective Statute. Further, it was also held that there cannot
be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay caused in
taking steps, and it has to be decided on merits of the case after taking note of the peculiar
background facts of each of the case.

• It is a well settled principle that the statue must be read as a whole in its context to understand its true
meaning and intent. When the question arises as to the meaning of a certain provision in the statue, it is
not only legitimate but proper to read that provision in its context. The context here means, the statute
as a whole, the previous state of the law, other statues pari materia, the general scope of the statue and
the mischief that it was intended to remedy - when an issue had not been examined in detail by the
original authority, and when such matter was preferred in an appeal before the Commissioner
(Appeals), in case if such appeal is filed beyond the time limit provided in law, and the first
appellate authority is unable to entertain the appeal on account of timebar, the course of option
available to the person aggrieved is to appeal before the next appellate authority i.e., the Tribunal
in this case, who could consider such a case in terms of the legal provisions of the respective Acts
and pass such order as it thinks fit, in confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order
appealed against or refer the case back to the authority which passed such order or direct for
fresh adjudication of the case.

• GUJRAT HC in case of PANOLI INTERMEDIATE INDIA PVT LTD.(2015) 7 TMI 303…….Held that HC will give
appropriate weightage to statutory provision because the things which cannot be done directly as per
statute cannot be permitted to be done indirectly in writ jurisdiction, unless a grave and strong case is
made out before HC that non interference to order under challenge would result in to gross injustice to
party suffering order.
• Petition under article 226 would not lie for the purpose of condonation of delay in filling appeal.
• In nutshell, in case of delay beyond 4 months, it is always advisable to approach WRIT COURT on merit of
case and JUSTIFY the DELAY in FILING APPEAL. However there are few decisions , wherein tribunal has
condoned the delay.

Filing of Appeal against Order NOT uploaded on portal
• The above mentioned procedure shall not be applicable in cases where the order is
not uploaded on GST portal
• In such case Appeal to be filed physically and acknowledgment in APL 02 to be

obtained.
• Pre-deposit to be paid vide DRC 03
Reason for payment to be mentioned as OTHERS – filing of Appeal and by reserving the
right to claim refund of same if appeal decided in favor of Appellant

IMPORTANT POINTS RELATED TO APPEAL FILLING
• Hard copy of Appeal in Form GST APL 01 in duplicate along with all annexures to be
filled physically.
• Copy of O-I-O to be certified by Adjudicating authority or Lawyer, Public Notary

etc……whether CA can certify ???......Rule 108 (3) provides that self certified copy of
OIO to be filled.
• Each page of APL 01 to be signed & stamped by appellant.
• Court Fee stamp of Re. 1/- each to be affixed on Form APL 01 & Certified Copy of O-I-
O.
• Proper indexing and numbering of the appeal memorandum.

IMPORTANT POINTS RELATED TO APPEAL FILLING
• Power of Attorney Vs. Letter of Authority…DICTIONARY MEANING

– A letter of authority works for simple tasks. It can be used for getting routine work done.
– But when there are big transactions, it is better to get a power of attorney because it sets out the
manner in which the activity is to be done.
– A letter of authority may or may not specify how an activity is to be carried out.
– A power of attorney is a notarised document and has an additional edge.
– A letter of authority is not an authenticated document for carrying out tasks.
– A Power of Attorney is a document under which one person authorises another person to do a
particular act. Hence, it is used for very specific purpose.
– ADVISABLE TO SUBMIT POA as against LOA.

CASE STUDY -4
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE:
• ABC Ltd through power of Attorney authorized CA XYZ, Mr. PQR (office staff of
CA XYZ) to appear before GST officer in connection to GST SCN issued to ABC
Ltd for F.Y 2018-19.
• The date of PH was schedule on 24th April, 2024 (Last chance)
• Due to ill health of CA XYZ, he could not appear before concern officer for said
PH, therefore his office staff Mr. PQR appeared before concern officer, since he
was holding power of Attorney.
• Ld. Officer did not entertain Mrs. PQR and informed him that he is not
authorised representative.
• Whether contention of Ld. Officer is correct?
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE:
• Section 116(2) of CGST Act provide as follows:
For the purposes of this Act, the expression “Authorised representative” shall mean a person authorised by the person
referred to in sub-section (1) to appear on his behalf, being-
– (a) his relative or regular employee; or
– (b) an advocate who is entitled to practice in any court in India, and who has not been debarred from practicing
before any court in India; or
– (c) any chartered accountant, a cost accountant or a company secretary, who holds a certificate of practice and
who has not been debarred from practice; or
– (d) a retired officer of the Commercial Tax Department of any State Government or Union territory or of the Board
who, during his service under the Government, had worked in a post not below the rank than that of a Group-B
Gazetted officer for a period of not less than two years:
– (e) any person who has been authorised to act as a goods and services tax practitioner on behalf of the concerned
registered person.

Case Study 5
Board Resolution:
• ABC Ltd filed an appeal against OIO & said appeal memo was signed by Director Mr. Z
• The PH for said appeal was held on 20th April, 2024 and Authorized representative CA
PQR appeared for said PH.
• OIA was passed by commissioner (Appeal) on the ground that appeal was signed by
Director Mr. Z for which Board resolution authroising Mr. Z to sign the appeal memo
was not submitted? Even designation of signatory and rubber stamp was not affixed
on APPEAL MEMO
• Whether ground of rejection of appeal by Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) is justified?
• RULE 26 (2)(C )…PROVIDES in case of company, CEO or authorised signatory thereof
shall signed each documents including return

DO AND DON’T OF GST LITIGATION
• Always file Adjournment letter in case you are unable to appear for PH on
schedule date. File on GST portal as well physical copy to PROPER OFFICER.
• Ledger & Financial Statements to be submitted duly certified by AUDITOR/ CA.
• CA Certificate should bear UDIN.
• Other documents such as invoice etc. to be self certified
• Can Proper office ask for additional details/document at time of personal

hearing for deciding the appeal?

WITH KNOWLEDGE……… WE KNOW THE WORDS,
BUT WITH EXPERIENCE……... WE KNOW THE MEANING
CA. Rajiv Luthia

R. J. LUTHIA & ASSOCIATES
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
610/611, Parmeshwari Centre, Above FEDEX, Dalmia Estate,
Off. LBS Marg, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 080.
Tel : 2564 1553/2569 4989 Mobile : 9821143524
Email: rajiv@rjl.co.in

1st Session - Assessment and Adjudication - by CA Rajiv Luthia Sir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1st Session - Assessment and Adjudication - by CA Rajiv Luthia Sir

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1st Session - Assessment and Adjudication - by CA Rajiv Luthia Sir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“Assessment and Adjudication- 360-degree view”

FULL DAY GST SEMINAR

• ASSESSMENT UNDER GST

25th May, 2024

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

Inquiry deemed to be “judicial

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

• “Superintendent of Central Tax” is assigned functions as proper

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

• If person making statement is dead/untraceable, or is incapable of giving evidence, or

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

• Every inquiry shall be deemed to be a “judicial proceeding”

• Section 193 of IPC………Punishment with imprisonment for a term

• Section 228 of IPC……….Punishment with simple imprisonment

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

• Section 174 of IPC……….Non attendance in response to summons

• Documents required to be produced must be specifically stated in

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

• Hon’ble Delhi HC……..K.T.Advani Vs State (1987) 30 ELT 390…The

• Hon’ble SC……...Poolpandi etc. vs. Superintendent CE (1992) 60 ELT

• Hon’ble Mumbai CESTAT….Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE (2006) 193

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

Sec -2(11) – Determination of • Section 2(13) – Audit :

• Result into AUDIT REPORT

• SCN issued based on audit

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

Self Scrutiny of Assessment of

SCRUTINIZE THE RETURNS & RELATED PARTICULARS SO FURNISHED

YES REPLY IN FORM GST ASMT – 11 NO

No Action • Audit or Special Audit

69 In-eligible ITC claimed from non-genuine taxpayers (NGTPs) whose RC is

70 Excess outward tax in GSTR-1 compared to GSTR-9 /GSTR-3B

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

Parameter No. Particulars

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

Proper officer to issue a Show Cause Notice in both cases

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

Show Cause Notice not to be issued where:-

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

• Where any order is required to be issued in pursuance of direction of Tribunal/ Court,

• Opportunity of personal hearing has to be granted when requested in writing by the

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

• Interest shall be payable in all cases whether specifically mentioned or not.

Identifying specific allegation made in SCN OIDAR vs. Intermediary

Detailed write up as against brief reply • Nature of business

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

• Demands and penalty dropped for 2nd and subsequent SCN.

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

➢ When the adjudicating authority merely directed the appellant to

Facts of the Case –:

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA

25th May, 2024 CA RAJIV LUTHIA