|
Goods And Services Tax
|
|
|
|
|
Avanti Feeds Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
In Avanti Feeds Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (A.P. High Court, 01.04.2026), the Court quashed a State GST show cause notice concerning IGST on imported goods, holding that jurisdiction to assess and recover such tax lies exclusively with Customs authorities, not State GST officers. The Court also ruled that cross-empowerment does not permit State authorities to proceed against taxpayers allotted to Central jurisdiction and held the multi-year notice unsustainable, reinforcing limits on jurisdictional overreach under the GST regime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M/s Prime Perfumery Works v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, South Division-3 & Ors.
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in M/s Prime Perfumery Works v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, South Division-3 & Ors. (2025:KHC:50375), addressed the issue of rejection of IGST refund on exports due to non-furnishing of a Letter of Undertaking (LUT) prior to export under Rule 96A of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner’s refund claim for the year 2022–23 had been rejected solely on this procedural ground. The Court noted that the CBIC Circular dated 15.03.2018 clarifies that delay in furnishing LUT can be condoned and such requirement is not mandatory but directory in nature, provided exports are duly established. Holding that substantive benefits of zero-rated supplies cannot be denied for procedural lapses and observing that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the binding circular, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The ruling reinforces that procedural non-compliance should not override substantive entitlements under GST law.
|
|
|
|
