Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, Sri Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ
Murali Krishna – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, Central Tax & Customs, Sub-office @ Visakhapatnam – Respondent
Order :
(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.)
Heard Sri V. Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Anil Bezawada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Santi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the 4th respondent.
2. The facts in the present case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:
a) The petitioner is a partnership firm, established in January 2017 and carrying on the business of a works contractor, which is executing infrastructure based Engineering Procurement Construction contracts. The petitioner registered itself under the GST Act. The primary and main business of the petitioner, for the relevant period from July, 2017 to March 2018, was the execution of works, as a sub-contractor, for one M/s. Vijay Nirman Company Ltd.
b) The petitioner raised nine invoices with an aggregate value of Rs.20,92,02,422/-. These invoices, were inclusive of GST of Rs.3,19,12,234/-. The said invoices were raised in the month of March, 2018.
c) The petitioner, though paid certain amounts, by M/s. Vijay Nirman Company Ltd., was unable to pay GST as the payments received from M/s. Vijay Nirma
Non-payment of GST does not imply fraud unless there is evidence of intent to evade tax; penalties under Section 74 can be upheld for wilful suppression of facts.
Non-payment of GST does not automatically imply fraud or wilful misstatement; evidence of intention to evade tax is necessary for penalties under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
Proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot be initiated without evidence of fraud or misstatement if prior proceedings under Section 73 have been concluded.
Tax authorities must provide substantial evidence of fraud or suppression of facts before imposing penalties under Sections 74 and 50, especially when input tax credit has already been reversed volun....
The court ruled that confusion about GST application does not constitute fraud or willful misstatement needed to invoke penalties under the Goods and Services Tax Act, thus quashing the show cause no....
Show-cause notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act can coexist for the same tax period if based on distinct grounds, and petitioners must pursue available appellate remedies before see....
The court determined that prior dismissal of proceedings under Section 61 does not prevent initiation of actions under Section 74 when fraud is alleged, affirming legislative intent regarding fraud i....
Composite show-cause notices covering multiple financial years under CGST/KGST Act are illegal as assessments must pertain to individual years, respecting statutory limitations and ensuring natural j....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
