Volum e 3

Is s ue MONTHLY

Conspectus
NEWSLETTER OF

4
APRIL 2021
THE CENTRAL TAX
ZONE BENGALURU The GST

this issue
The GST Seva Kendra
(Help Centre) at the CR Notification Updates (Mar 2021) P.2
Building, Bengaluru
launches a whatsapp
outreach GST Circulars P.3

GSTN Updates P.8

Case law Update P 12

The Month in Review Non-mention if the HSN/SAC

code in the tax invoice will render
the recipient ineligible to claim

The GST Seva Kendra of The beginning of this financial input tax credit.
Bangalore Zone is now
year will see a few mandatory As always, this issue continues
compliances under GST taking to capture in brief the changes
available on Whatsapp.
effect from 1st April 2021. effected during the month of
This M-Seva - a taxpayer
facilitation mechanism is E-Invoicing is mandatory w.e.f. March 2021 both in law/ rules
one wherein taxpayers 1st April 2021 for Registered and the new circulars issued.
can make queries on Persons under GST if turnover This also brings in the important
GST matters to the for the FY 2020-21 exceeds Rs. decisions that were recently
50 Crores. pronounced. We hope that this
Whatsapp number +91-
issue of the Bengaluru Zone’s
9480258909 and receive Mentioning the HSN/SAC code newsletter will help you closely
appropriate guidance / in the invoices is mandatory w.e.f. follow the changes that have
clarification in the 1st April 2021. The number of happened in GST.
matter. digits of the code will depend on
As usual, we look forward to
The Help Centre stands the turnover in the previous
receiving your comments and
financial year. Registered persons
ready to meet its feedback on [email protected].
enhanced service
with a turnover of less than and
upto Rs 5 cr in the previous -For the Editorial Team
protocols and would be
financial year will have to
glad to be of assistance to
mention a 4 digit HSN/SAC code
any taxpayer/ s that may
in all B2B invoices. Registered Archana Nayak
like make use of the
persons with a turnover of over
facility.
Rs 5 cr in the previous financial
Joint Commissioner
year will have to mention a 6 (PCCO)
http://gstkarnataka.gov.in/m
digit HSN/SAC code in all B2B
ailquery.html
and B2C invoices.
Returns Offline Tool Version
V2.3.1

https://www.gst.gov.in/dow
nload/returns
1|P a ge ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021
Updates on Legal matters

(Notifications issued during March 2021)

E-invoicing mandatory for taxpayers having turnover over Rs 50 crore:

The CBIC vide Notification No 05/2021 CT dated 8th March 2021, has
amended Notification No 13/2020 dated 21st March 2020 and made e-
invoicing mandatory with effect from 1st April 2021 for all registered
taxpayers whose aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds Rs 50
crores.
The original Notification No 13/2020 dated 21st March 2020 had made e-
invoicing mandatory for registered taxpayers whose aggregate turnover in a
financial year exceeds Rs 100 crores, from 1st October 2020.

B2C QR code compliance exemption extended till 30th June 2021:

The CBIC vide Notification Noo 06/2021 CT dated 30th March 2021 has
further waived the penalty payable by registered persons for not having the
Dynamic QR Code on the B2C invoices issued till 30th June 2021.

The invoice issued by the notified registered persons for B2C supplies was
mandatorily required to carry a Dynamic QR Code with effect from 1st
December 2020 in terms of Notification 14/2020 CT dated 21st March 2020

2|P a ge ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

read with Notf No 71/2020 CT dated 30th Sept 2020. Non-compliance of this
requirement warrented a penalty in terms of Section 125 of the CGST Act.
However, vide Notification No 89/2020 CT dated 29th November 2020, the
penalty for non-compliance of this requirement was waived for the period 1st
Dec 2020 till 31st March 2021 provided the taxpayers comply with the said
provision with effect from 1st April 2021.

Now, vide Notification No 06/2021 CT dated 30-03-2021, the waiver of penalty

is extended till 30th June 2021 provided the taxpayer cmplies with the QR
Code requirement on B2C invoices with effect from 1st July 2021.

Circular clarifying refund related issues in GST:

The CBIC issued Circular No 147/03/2021 GST dated 12th March 2021
clarifying certain refund related issues as follows:

Clarification in respect of refund claim by recipient of Deemed Export

Supply

Para 41 of Circular No. 125/44/2019 – GST dated 18/11/2019 has placed a

condition that the recipient of deemed export supplies for obtaining the refund
of tax paid on such supplies shall submit an undertaking that he has not
availed ITC on invoices for which refund has been claimed. Thus, in terms of
the above circular, the recipient of deemed export supplies cannot avail ITC
on such supplies but when they proceed to file refund on the portal, the
system requires them to debit the amount so claimed from their electronic
credit ledger.

The 3rd proviso to Rule 89(1) of CGST Rules, 2017 allows for refund of tax
paid in case of a deemed export supply to the recipient or the supplier of
deemed export supplies. The said proviso is reproduced as under:
“Provided also that in respect of supplies regarded as deemed exports, the
application may be filed by,
-(a) the recipient of deemed export supplies; or
(b) the supplier of deemed export supplies in cases where the recipient
does not avail of input tax credit on such supplies and furnishes an
undertaking to the effect that the supplier may claim the refund”

3|P a ge ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

From the above, it can be seen that there is no restriction on recipient of
deemed export supplies in availing ITC of the tax paid on such supplies when
the recipient files for refund claim. The said restriction has been placed by the
Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019. 2.4 In this regard, it is
submitted that in order to ensure that there is no dual benefit to the claimant,
the portal allows refund of only Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the recipients which
is required to be debited by the claimant while filing application for refund
claim. Therefore, whenever the recipient of deemed export supplies files an
application for refund, the portal requires debit of the equivalent amount from
the electronic credit ledger of the claimant.

As stated above, there is no restriction under 3rd proviso to Rule 89(1) of

CGST Rules, 2017 on recipient of deemed export supply, claiming refund of
tax paid on such deemed export supply, on availment of ITC on the tax paid
on such supply. Therefore, the para 41 of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST
dated 18.11.2019 is modified to remove the restriction of non-availment of
ITC by the recipient of deemed export supplies on the invoices, for which
refund has been claimed by such recipient. The amended para 41 of Circular
no. 125/44/2.019-GST dated 18.11.2019 would read as under:

“41. Certain supplies of goods have been notified as deemed

exports vide notification No. 48/2017-Central Tax dated
18.10.2017 under section 147 of the CGST Act. Further, the third
proviso to rule 89(1) of the CGST Rules allows either the recipient
or the supplier to apply for refund of tax paid on such deemed
export supplies. In case such refund is sought by the supplier of
deemed export supplies, the documentary evidences as
specified in notification No. 49/2017- Central Tax dated
18.10.2017 are also required to be furnished which includes an
undertaking that the recipient of deemed export supplies shall
not claim the refund in respect of such supplies and shall not
avail any input tax credit on such supplies. Similarly, in case the
refund is filed by the recipient of deemed export supplies, an
undertaking shall have to be furnished by him stating that
refund has been claimed only for those invoices which have
been detailed in statement 5B for the tax period for which refund
is being claimed and the amount does not exceed the amount of
input tax credit availed in the valid return filed for the said tax
period. The recipient shall also be required to declare that the
supplier has not claimed refund with respect to the said
supplies. The procedure regarding procurement of supplies of
goods from DTA by Export Oriented Unit (EOU) / Electronic
Hardware Technology Park (EHTP) Unit / Software Technology
Park (STP) Unit / Bio-Technology Parks (BTP) Unit under deemed
export as laid down in Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST dated
06.11.2017 needs to be complied with.”

Extension of relaxation for filing refund claim in cases where zero-rated

supplies has been wrongly declared in Table 3.1(a).

4|P a ge ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

Para 26 of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18th November 2019 gave a
clarification in relation to cases where taxpayers had inadvertently entered
the details of export of services or zero-rated supplies to a Special Economic
Zone Unit/Developer in table 3.1(a) instead of table 3.1(b) of FORM GSTR-3B
of the relevant period and were unable to claim refund of the integrated tax
paid on the same through FORM GST RFD-01A. This was because of a
validation check placed on the common portal which prevented the value of
refund of integrated tax/cess in FORM GST RFD-01A from being more than
the amount of integrated tax/cess declared in table 3.1(b) of FORM GSTR-3B.
The said Circular clarified that for the tax periods from 01.07.2017 to
30.06.2019, such registered persons shall be allowed to file the refund
application in FORM GST RFD-01A on the common portal subject to the
condition that the amount of refund of integrated tax/cess claimed shall not
be more than the aggregate amount of integrated tax/cess mentioned in the
tables 3.1(a), 3.1(b) and 3.1(c) of FORM GSTR-3B filed for the corresponding
tax period. 3.2 Since the clarification issued vide the above Circular was valid
only from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2019, taxpayers who committed these errors
in subsequent periods were not able to file the refund applications in FORM
GST RFD-01A/ FORM GST RFD-01. 3.3 The issue has been examined and it
has been decided to extend the relaxation provided for filing refund claims
where the taxpayer inadvertently entered the details of export of services or
zero-rated supplies to a Special Economic Zone Unit/Developer in table 3.1(a)
instead of table 3.1(b) of FORM GSTR-3B till 31.03.2021. Accordingly, para
26 of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 stands modified as
under:

“26. In this regard, it is clarified that for the tax periods

commencing from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2021, such registered
persons shall be allowed to file the refund application in FORM GST
RFD-01 on the common portal subject to the condition that the
amount of refund of integrated tax/cess claimed shall not be more
than the aggregate amount of integrated tax/cess mentioned in the
Table under columns 3.1(a), 3.1(b) and 3.1(c) of FORM GSTR-3B
filed for the corresponding tax period.”

The manner of calculation of Adjusted Total Turnover under sub-rule (4)

of Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017.

Doubts have been raised as to whether the restriction on turnover of zero-

rated supply of goods to 1.5 times the value of like goods domestically
supplied by the same or, similarly placed, supplier, as declared by the
supplier, imposed by amendment in definition of the “Turnover of zero-rated
supply of goods” vide Notification No. 16/2020-Central Tax dated 23.03.2020,
would also apply for computation of “Adjusted Total Turnover” in the formula
given under Rule 89 (4) of CGST Rules, 2017 for calculation of admissible
refund amount.

5|P a ge ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

Sub-rule (4) of Rule 89 prescribes the formula for computing the refund of
unutilised ITC payable on account of zero-rated supplies made without
payment of tax. The formula prescribed under Rule 89 (4) is reproduced
below, as under:

“Refund Amount = (Turnover of zero-rated supply of goods +

Turnover of zero-rated supply of services) x Net ITC ÷Adjusted Total
Turnover”

Adjusted Total Turnover has been defined in clause (E) of sub-rule (4) of Rule
89 as under:

“Adjusted Total Turnover” means the sum total of the value of-
(a) the turnover in a State or a Union territory, as defined
under clause (112) of section 2, excluding the turnover of
services; and
(b) the turnover of zero-rated supply of services
determined in terms of clause (D) above and non-zero-rated
supply of services,
excluding-
(i) the value of exempt supplies other than zero-rated supplies; and
(ii) the turnover of supplies in respect of which refund is claimed
under sub-rule (4A) or sub-rule (4B) or both, if any, during the
relevant period.’

“Turnover in state or turnover in Union territory” as referred to in the

definition of “Adjusted Total Turnover” in Rule 89 (4) has been defined under
sub-section (112) of Section 2 of CGST Act 2017, as:

“Turnover in State or turnover in Union territory” means the

aggregate value of all taxable supplies (excluding the value of
inward supplies on which tax is payable by a person on reverse
charge basis) and exempt supplies made within a State or Union
territory by a taxable person, exports of goods or services or both
and inter State supplies of goods or services or both made from the
State or Union territory by the said taxable person but excludes
central tax, State tax, Union territory tax, integrated tax and cess”

From the examination of the above provisions, it is noticed that “Adjusted

Total Turnover” includes “Turnover in a State or Union Territory”, as defined
in Section 2(112) of CGST Act. As per Section 2(112), “Turnover in a State or
Union Territory” includes turnover/ value of export/ zero-rated supplies of
goods. The definition of “Turnover of zero-rated supply of goods” has been
amended vide Notification No.16/2020-Central Tax dated 23.03.2020, as
detailed above. In view of the above, it can be stated that the same value of
zero-rated/ export supply of goods, as calculated as per amended definition
of “Turnover of zero-rated supply of goods”, need to be taken into
consideration while calculating “turnover in a state or a union territory”, and
accordingly, in “adjusted total turnover” for the purpose of sub-rule (4) of Rule

6|P a ge ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

89. Thus, the restriction of 150% of the value of like goods domestically
supplied, as applied in “turnover of zero-rated supply of goods”, would also
apply to the value of “Adjusted Total Turnover” in Rule 89 (4) of the CGST
Rules, 2017.

Accordingly, it is clarified that for the purpose of Rule 89(4), the value of
export/ zero-rated supply of goods to be included while calculating “adjusted
total turnover” will be same as being determined as per the amended
definition of “Turnover of zero-rated supply of goods” in the said sub-rule. The
same can explained by the following illustration where actual value per unit
of goods exported is more than 1.5 times the value of same/ similar goods in
domestic market, as declared by the supplier:

Illustration: Suppose a supplier is manufacturing only one type of goods and

is supplying the same goods in both domestic market and overseas. During
the relevant period of refund, the details of his inward supply and outward
supply details are shown in the table below:

Net admissible ITC = Rs. 270 All

values in Rs.

Outward Supply Value per No of units Turnover Turnover as

unit supplied per amended
definition
Local (Quantity 200 5 1000 1000
5)
Export 350 5 1750 1500
(Quantity 5) (1.5*5*200)
Total 2750 2500

The formula for calculation of refund as per Rule 89(4) is :

Refund Amount = (Turnover of zero-rated supply of goods + Turnover of zero-
rated supply of services) x Net ITC ÷Adjusted Total Turnover

Turnover of Zero-rated supply of goods (as per amended definition) = Rs. 1500
Adjusted Total Turnover= Rs. 1000 + Rs. 1500 = Rs. 2500 [and not Rs. 1000
+ Rs. 1750]
Net ITC = Rs. 270

Refund Amount = Rs. 1500*270 = Rs. 162

2500
Thus, the admissible refund amount in the instant case is Rs. 162

7|P a ge ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

Advisory on Classification of taxpayers:
GSTN has issued an advisory for classification of taxpayers. Taxpayers are
required to select their business activity only once on the GST Portal, as -
Manufacturer, wholesaler/Distributor/Retailer, service providers & others
post login based on highest turnover amongst them. You can change the same
later.

Filing GSTR-1 (Q) for Jan-Mar 2021 under QRMP Scheme

The taxpayers under QRMP scheme have a facility to file Invoice Furnishing
Facility (IFF) in first two months of the quarter and file Form GSTR-1 in third
month of the quarter. As IFF is an optional facility it cannot be filed after the
end date (13th of the month succeeding the IFF period). The document saved
in IFF, where taxpayer has not filed by the end date, cannot be filed anymore.
Hence taxpayers are requested to declare such document in the GSTR-1 for
the quarter. Hence, before filing of GSTR-1 for Jan-Mar-2021 quarter, the
taxpayer must ensure that:

1. Any saved but not Filed/Submitted IFF records for the first two months
of the quarter i.e. month of Jan-2021 or Feb-2021 must be deleted
using RESET button before filing GSTR-1 for Jan-Mar-2021 quarter.
The deleted records should be added in GSTR-1 for Jan-Mar-2021
quarter after deleting the saved records from IFF. In future this may not
be required as invoices already saved in any of the months on the
quarter may be either deleted/moved to quarterly GSTR-1 by a
functionality to be introduced shortly.

2. Any submitted but not filed IFF for the month of Jan-2021 or Feb-2021
must be filed before filing GSTR-1 for Jan-Mar-2021 quarter.

8|P a ge ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

Accounting and Billing Software provided free of cost to all
taxpayers below 1.5 cr turnover:

GSTN has partnered with empanelled companies to provide free of cost Accounting
and Billing software for taxpayers with turnover below Rs 1.5 crores. The final
list of the empanelled companies is available on the GSTN website at the
following link.

https://www.gstn.org.in/empaneled-companies

9|P a ge ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

CBIC Circulars:
DGSys launches Saksham Dashboard – Advisory dated 19-
03-2021:

DG Systems has launched several IT services (business applications, websites

and tools, etc.) over the years for the use of CBIC officers. These services have
different URLs. Some of which are available on Intranet, whereas others are
accessible on internet as well. Officers need to remember individual URLs in
order to access these services. Apart from this, many officers may not be
aware of all these services.

To enable officers to see all the services on a single dashboard with better user
experience, DG Systems has taken the initiative to provide a dashboard with
single URL through which officers can navigate to their respective services by
clicking on the concerned service icon on the dashboard.

We are also configuring the AIOs so that the Saksham dashboard will open
by default after successful login. Officer will get a default page of Saksham
Dashboard (https://saksham.cbic.gov.in) on Internet Explorer, displaying all
services on a single page.

A “Saksham” icon is also made available on AIO’s desktop. Officer can click
on the Saksham icon and dashboard having URL
https://saksham.cbic.gov.in will open.

10 | P a g e ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

 If the officer wants to work on desktop applications, he should simply
minimize the webpage which opens by default. Alternatively, officer can open
the dashboard directly from any web browser by using the link
https://saksham.cbic.gov.in from internet or intranet.

There are a few applications which are only available over intranet like
Appstore, eBR, ADVAIT, ECCS application. Also, a few applications like eBR
and ECCS are available only from a few identified locations based on the
business requirements and hence may not get opened from all the CBIC
locations. For Rakshit application access is given through Antarang only.

11 | P a g e ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

Bombay High Court holds that arrest of persons under Section 69 of the
CGST Act is not tenable where no complaints or formal accusations are
made against them.
In the case of the Writ Petitions filed by Sunil Kumar Jha and Akshay
Chhabra vs UOI, reported in 2021-TIOL-628-HC-MUM-GST, the petitioners
are the MD and the CFO respectively, of a company engaged in providing
business process outsourcing (BPO) services to various clients covering a
range of services from customer support to consultancy services, to
healthcare and retailing - In the relevant period, the assessee-company was
subject to search & seizure operations - The petitioners were summoned to
produce purchase invoices of seven companies - The petitioners subsequently
filed the present petition seeking to declare Sec 132(1)(b) & 132(1)(c) of the
CGST Act as being unconstitutional - It also sought for a declaration that
power under section 69 can be exercised only upon determination of liability
and consequent upon failure of the taxable person to meet such liability - The
petitioners also sought that the Revenue be restrained from lodging any
criminal complaint against the petitioners - The petitioners, who had been
arrested, also sought that the petitioners be released on bail.
The Hon’ble High Court held that both the petitioners taken together had
appeared before the respondents on multiple occasions particularly on
20.11.2020, 01.02.2021, 03.02.2021, 09.02.2021, 12.02.2021, 15.02.2021
and 16.02.2021 when their statements were recorded. Not only that, a
number of employees and officials of the petitioner company as well as
independent directors had appeared before the investigating authorities and
their statements were also recorded. As a matter of fact in the statement of
Mr. Akashnand Karnik, director of the petitioner company recorded on
01.02.2021, he meticulously answered all the queries pertaining to various
transactions of the petitioner company with M/s. Wiggins Coretech
Equipments Pvt Ltd, M/s. Siddharth Education Services, M/s. HNO
Furnishsings Ltd, M/s. Creative Business Associates, M/s. Mystique Media
Pvt Ltd, M/s. Gradient Infotainment Ltd and M/s. Cannon Ball Trading Pvt
Ltd including supply of computers and whatever services were provided by
them. On the same day, the statement of Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha was also
recorded separately and if we look at the two statements, we do not find any
significant discrepancy in the two. If that is the position and following the law
laid down in Arnesh Kumar as reiterated by this Court in Daulat S. Mehta,

12 | P a g e ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

there could not have been any justification to arrest the two petitioners on
16.02.2021.
+ The Hon’ble High Court also observed that they do not find any instance of
the petitioners tampering with documents or trying to influence any witness
being brought on record. Merely saying or apprehending that in future they
may tamper with evidence or induce any witness as observed by the learned
Magistrate cannot be a justification to deny bail.
+ The High Court observed that the maximum sentence that can be imposed
upon conviction for the said offence is imprisonment for five years. Section
167(2)(a)(ii) makes it clear that a person cannot be kept in detention beyond
a total period of sixty days where investigation relates to an offence
punishable for imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and is not
completed. It also says that a Magistrate may authorize detention of the
accused person beyond a period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate
grounds exists for doing so but no Magistrate shall authorize detention of the
accused person in custody for a total period exceeding 60 days as in the
present case. In this backdrop, the High Court remarked that the prayer made
by the arresting authority in the remand application is for remand of the
petitioners to judicial custody for 60 days though in the penultimate
paragraph, this was overwritten to 14 days but without initials. This only
indicates the manner in which the respondents have proceeded in the matter
whereby the process of detention itself is sought to be converted into a
penalty.
+ The High Court also noticed that as per the remand application, the
allegation against the two petitioners is that they had played a crucial role in
illegally availing input tax credit of Rs. 9,04,89,054.00. Petitioners have stated
that on 18.02.2021, petitioner company made a payment of Rs.
1,36,56,638.00 under protest. Thereafter further payments were made on
23.02.2021 for a total amount of Rs. 3,44,02,350.00. In all, petitioners have
paid Rs. 4,80,58,988.00 till date and they have made a statement that they
would be bound to pay whatever amount is found due and payable upon
investigation and adjudication subject to their right of appeal.
+ In Daulat S. Mehta, the Bombay High Court had held that bail jurisprudence
which has evolved over the years stands on a different footing altogether. This
is more so when admittedly respondents have not lodged any first information
report before the police under section 154 of Cr.P.C. Respondents have also
not filed any complaint before the competent magistrate under section 200
Cr.P.C. There was no formal accusation against the petitioners prior to their
arrest. The first time such accusation was placed on record was after arrest
in the form of remand application. A remand application by its very nature
cannot be construed to be a first information or a complaint as is understood
in law. If the remand application is excluded, then even after 26 days of
custody (in the case of Daulat S. Mehta), there was still no formal accusation
against the said petitioner.
+ The same is the situation in the present case as well. Both Mr. Akshay
Chhabra and Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha are in detention since 16.02.2021 without

13 | P a g e ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

any formal accusation. In such circumstances, without expressing any
opinion at this stage as to the legality and validity of the initial arrest, the
Hon’ble High Court opined that continued detention of the petitioners would
not at all be justified. Accordingly, and in the light of the above, the Court
issued the following directions:
(i) Let formal notice be issued to the respondents;
(ii) Petitioners i.e Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Akshay Chhabra shall execute
a personal bond each for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand)
before the Jail Superintendent, Taloja Jail;
(iii) The concerned Jail Superintendent is directed to ensure that this order is
complied with forthwith;
(iv) Upon release, petitioners shall furnish surety of Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rs. Five
Lacs) each in Remand Application No. F. No. V/AE/Bel/GrA(New)/12-
159/OPOS/20-21 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi at C.B.D.
Belapur tomorrow i.e 12.03.2021;
(iv) Within six weeks of their release, petitioners to furnish one solvent surety
each of the like amount before the said authority;
(v) Petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not make any
attempt to interfere with the ongoing investigation;
(iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with any evidence or try to influence or
intimidate any witness;
(iv) Petitioners shall deposit their passports before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Vashi at C.B.D. Belapur

2) When law requires that no application for refund shall be rejected

without giving an opportunity of being heard, same cannot be
substituted by telephonic conversations and exchange of e-mails:
Bombay HC
In the writ petition filed by M/s BA Continuum India Pvt Ltd vs UOI and
Others, reported in 2021-TIOL-567-HC-MUM-GST, the petitioner has
assailed legality and correctness of five identical orders passed by respondent
No.4 for five quarters covering the period from April, 2018 to June, 2019
rejecting the refund claims made by them in respect of unutilized input tax
credit - The petitioner in its detailed reply had specifically requested
respondent No.4 to withdraw the proposal to pass ex-parte orders in its case
without granting personal hearing based on detailed legal and factual
submissions - This was followed by a number of e-mails requesting
respondent No.4 for granting opportunity of being heard in person –
Section 54 of CGST Act deals with refund of tax - When the law requires that
no application for refund shall be rejected without giving an applicant an
opportunity of being heard, the same cannot be substituted by telephonic
conversations and exchange of e-mails - This is more so in the case of a claim

14 | P a g e ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

for refund where no time limit is fixed vis-a-vis rejection of claim - Under sub-
section (7) of section 54, a time-limit of 60 days is prescribed for making of an
order allowing claim of refund; but that period of 60 days would commence
from the date of receipt of the application complete in all respects without
there being a corresponding provision for rejection of application not complete
in all respects - Admittedly in this case, no hearing was granted to the
petitioner - Impugned orders, therefore, would be in violation of the proviso to
sub-rule (3) of rule 92 of the CGST Rules and also in violation of the principles
of natural justice - The matter is remanded back to the original authority for
a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner - Since respondent No.4 has already taken a view on
merit by disclosing her mind which is adverse to the petitioner, it would be in
the interest of justice and fairness if another competent officer is assigned the
task of deciding the refund applications of the petitioner de novo on remand.

15 | P a g e ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

 LAUNCHING OF BALLOON IN COMMEMORATION OF
INDIA’s 75 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE – AZADI KA AMRUT
MAHOTSAV

16 | P a g e ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

17 | P a g e ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021
18 | P a g e ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021
 Important Dates:

GSTR 3B (March 2021) 20th April 2021

GSTR 3B (Jan-Mar 2021) 22nd & 24th April 2021
CMP-08 (Jan-Mar 2021) 18th April 2021
GSTR 1(Jan-Mar 2021) 13th April 2021
Follow our
Monthly GSTR 1 (March 2021) 11th April 2021
Newsletter GSTR 5 (March 2021) 20th April 2021
GSTR 6 (March 2021) 13th April 2021
You c an ret riev e GSTR 7 (March 2021) 10th April 2021
the new slett er f or GSTR 8 (March 2021) 10th April 2021
the Sept em ber GSTR 4 (2020-2021) 30th April 2021
2018 onw ards
from t his arc hiv e

ht t p:/ / gs tk arnat ak
a. gov .in/ m ont hne
ws . ht m

The GST Conspectus Issue April 2021

Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax (GST)

Bengaluru
. Editorial Team
Central Revenue Building A rch a n a N a ya k, Jo i n t C o m mi s si o n e r
N i rma l Jo y, D e p u t y C o m mi ssi o n e r
# 1, Queen’s Road, Bengaluru
Karnataka- 560001 C o n t e n t R e se a rch e rs
Website: http://gstkarnataka.gov.in/ S a b ri n a C a n o , S u p e ri n t e n d e n t
M. C h o k ka l i n g a m, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t
Mail Us: :[email protected]
B i j u T h a mp i , S u p e ri n t e n d e n t

Disclaimer: The information, content, data etc. provided in this newsletter is for general
information purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice or
research. Users are advised to not solely rely on the content available in this newsletter and to
undertake their own independent due diligence. Users are advised to visit the official website of the
Ministry of Finance, Government of India for latest updates on GST related laws, rules and
regulations etc.

19 | P a g e ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021

20 | P a g e ©PCCO CT- BZ The GS T C onsp ec tus April 2021