Back
B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
Hatsoff Helicopter Training Pvt. Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to gst liability and orders (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on registration and exemption (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal necessity of gstin for exemptions (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's analysis of gstin omission impact (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has impugned the second respondent's order-in-original dated 30.01.2023 [Annexure-C] and the third respondent's order-in- appeal dated 30.09.2023 [Annexure-E] with a prayer for quashing the recovery notice dated 17.10.2023 issued by the second respondent [Annexure-J] and for refund of Rs.1,52,03,733/-.
2. The petitioner is issued with notice in Form GST DRC-02 on 29.11.2022 for the period from 2018-19 to 2021-22 referring to the audit report and calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the additional tax liability in a sum of Rs.22,80,51,322/-. The petitioner has caused reply on 09.01.2023, and with the second respondent passing the impugned order-in-original dated 30.01.2023 in Form GST DRC-07 computing the petitioner's liability in a total sum of Rs.25,08,56,456/- [total tax payable of Rs.22,80,51,322/- with penalty in a sum of Rs.2,28,05,134/-], the petitioner has filed its appeal under Section 107 (11) of
Failure to furnish GSTIN does not negate the entitlement to exemptions under GST for services rendered to governmental defense establishments when the expenses are borne by the government.
The court ruled that GST does not apply to services executed outside India's territory, affirming that the taxpayer's activities in Maldives constituted a fixed establishment subject to local laws.
The court ruled that inadequate notice particulars denied the petitioner an effective opportunity to respond, necessitating the annulment of the order and further proceedings.
The Petitioner is considered an independent contractor not an agent, hence eligible for ITC refunds under GST provisions relating to zero-rated supplies.
A registered person is not entitled to input tax credit if the claimed supplies are from non-existent firms, regardless of the validity of the supplier's GST registration at the time of transaction.
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
