- The High Court held that a show cause notice is not invalid merely because it mentioned Section 9(4) instead of Section 9(3) of the CGST Act.
- The court rejected the revenue neutrality argument, ruling that exporting 80% of products does not remove the obligation to pay GST under RCM.
- Paying IGST on exports and seeking refunds under Section 54 does not eliminate liability under RCM.
- The penalty under Section 122(2) was upheld because the petitioner had notice of the RCM obligation on raw cotton purchases from agriculturists but still failed to comply with the relevant notification.
Source: vilgst.com
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
Latest Posts in "India"
- India intensifies GST enforcement for foreign digital-service providers under OIDAR rules
- India: GSTN Launches E-Invoicing for RCM Self-Invoices
- India GST Council Proposes E-Invoicing for Reverse Charge Purchases
- India: GSTN Introduces E-Invoicing for RCM Self-Invoices
- India: GSTAT rules services to Australian parent are exports, orders refund
