CA NIKHIL JAIN (FCA, LLB, B.com (Hons), CS)

The E-Way Bill (EWB) mechanism under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime plays a pivotal role in ensuring seamless and transparent movement of goods across India. However, non-compliance with EWB provisions can result in significant legal and financial consequences for taxpayers. This article outlines the statutory implications of non-adherence to EWB requirements under the GST framework, as derived from the relevant provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 and the corresponding rules. 1. Detention, Seizure, and Release of Goods and Conveyances As per the GST law, if any person transports or stores goods in transit in contravention of the Act or the rules made thereunder—including non-compliance with EWB provisions—all such goods, along with the conveyance used for transportation and relevant documents, are liable for detention or seizure by the proper officer. In cases where the EWB or the accompanying invoice/delivery challan is missing, incomplete, ...

 1. Case Details Case Name: Tvl. Silver Cloud Estates Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer Court: Madras High Court Appeal Number: W.P. No. 543 of 2025 Date of Judgement: 09/01/2025 Relevant Assessment Year: 2018-19 2. Order Appealed Against The petitioner challenged the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer concerning discrepancies identified in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner asserted that the proceedings were initiated without proper communication, as notices were uploaded only on the GST portal without being served personally or via registered post acknowledgment due (RPAD). 3. Key Issues The main issues identified in the petition are: Whether the uploading of notices solely on the GST portal without serving the notices personally or through RPAD constitutes valid service. Whether the petitioner should be afforded another opportunity to respond and rectify the identified discrepancies...

  AAAR Background: Appellant: M/s. Devendra Kantibhai Patel, engaged in providing consultancy services, including preparation and provision of plans, estimates, and Draft Tender Plans (DTP) for building works. Service Recipient: Roads and Buildings (R&B) Department, Government of Gujarat. Nature of Services: Claimed by the appellant as pure services (excluding Works Contract Services or composite supplies involving goods), purportedly related to functions entrusted to municipalities under Article 243W and Panchayats under Article 243G of the Constitution of India. Issues Raised for Advance Ruling: Whether the consultancy services provided qualify as activities related to Panchayats or Municipalities as per Articles 243G and 243W of the Indian Constitution. If affirmative, whether such services are eligible for exemption from GST under Sr. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R), dated 28.06.2017. Original Decision by GAAR: Claim 1: The service provided is confi...

 1. Case Details Case Title: Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd Vs Joint Commissioner Court: Kerala High Court Applicable Legislation: Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) Section Invoked: Section 73, Section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act Nature of Proceedings: Writ Petition challenging the determination of tax liability related to Input Tax Credit (ITC) on construction works contract. 2. Order Appealed Against The order challenged in the writ petition was issued by the Joint Commissioner, disallowing Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd's claim of input tax credit (ITC) on works contract services utilized for constructing shopping malls. The respondent's order confirmed the demand notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, asserting the ineligibility of the petitioner to avail ITC on construction-related services. 3. Key Issues The primary legal issues identified in this case include: Eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on construction servi...

  1. Case Details Case Name: Limra Traders (Legal Name: Laxmi Dubey) v. The State of Jharkhand & Others Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Citation: W.P.(T) No. 6027 of 2024 & W.P.(T) No. 6028 of 2024 Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan Date of Judgment: 04 March 2025 2. Order Appealed Against The petitioner challenged adjudication orders, including the summary of demand passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Singhbhum Circle, under Section 74 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (JGST Act, 2017), for being violative of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. 3. Key Issues Whether the adjudication orders passed by tax authorities under Section 74 of the JGST Act, 2017 without granting adequate opportunity for personal hearing violate principles of natural justice and mandatory statutory provisions. 4. Petitioner's Arguments The petitioner argued that adjudication o...

 Case Details Case Name: Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs Modern India Products Court: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) Appeal Number: W.A(MD) No.1559 of 2021 Date of Judgment: 21st February 2025 Order Appealed Against The present appeal arose from an earlier order by a single Judge bench dated April 17, 2021, in W.P. (MD) No.9796 of 2020, wherein the Madras High Court allowed the refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on exported goods by the petitioner, despite availing duty drawback. Key Issues The central issue addressed by the court was: Whether an exporter is entitled to claim a refund of IGST paid on exports that qualify as zero-rated supplies under the IGST Act, even after availing of duty drawback benefits. Petitioner's Arguments The Petitioner, M/s Modern India Products, contended: Their exports fell under the category of zero-rated supply as per Sections 16 and 54 of the IGST Act, read with Rule 96 of CGST Rules. They are entitled to the refund ...

  Issue Involved: Whether GST applies to canteen charges recovered from employees and contractual workers. Availability of ITC on GST paid to the canteen service provider for food provided to employees and contractual workers. Facts: Troikaa Pharmaceuticals provides subsidized canteen facilities to employees and contractual workers. The company recovers 50% of canteen costs from employees. For contractual workers, the canteen service provider directly bills only 50% of the charges to Troikaa Pharmaceuticals; the rest is paid directly by workers. Advance Ruling: GST does not apply to amounts collected from employees for canteen services. GST applies to amounts collected from contractual workers. ITC is available for GST paid on food provided to employees (under statutory obligation). ITC is not available for food provided to contractual workers, as providing such canteen services to contractual workers isn't legally mandated. Grounds for Appeal: Troikaa Pharmaceuticals argued it has...