- 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"
- Traders Urge Punjab Government to Clear Delayed GST Refunds
- GST Council May Unblock ITC on Insurance, Catering, Free Samples, and Wasted Goods
- Assam Uses Data Analytics to Crack Down on GST Fraud
- P&H HC: ITC Cannot Be Denied Mechanically for Supplier’s Fraud
- Telecommunication Towers and GST: From Credit Exclusion to Immovability Test
