HC sets aside GST demand order issued to company
has set aside the
issued to a
on the grounds that the order was passed, ignoring the request made by the company seeking an adjournment of the personal hearing.
The court was hearing the petition filed by a private company engaged in the business of construction works and contract services.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The authorities conducted a surprise inspection in Jan 2024 and issued a notice pointing out certain defects concerning the input tax credit (ITC) availed and the turnover reported by the petitioner company.
Subsequently, a reminder notice was issued on July 19, 2024, scheduling a personal hearing on July 26, 2024. In response, the company submitted an adjournment letter requesting additional time to file a reply with supporting documents. However, without considering this request, state tax officer 1 (inspection), Trichy division, passed the GST demand order under Section 74 of the
.
Challenging the order, the petitioner filed the petition.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that the court is of the view that the order suffers from a violation of the
. Hence, the judge set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the authorities for fresh consideration. The judge directed the petitioner to file their reply along with the relevant documents within a week. The authorities shall consider the petitioner's reply and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity for a personal hearing, within three weeks thereafter, the judge directed and disposed of the petition.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Google vs CCI: What the Android antitrust case means for India's digital ecosystem
Story so far: On August 8, 2025, the Supreme Court admitted an appeal filed by Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, against a judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The tribunal had earlier upheld, at least in part, the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) findings that Google had abused its dominant position in the Android ecosystem to indulge in anti-competitive practices. Alongside Google's appeal, the Court also admitted related petitions from the CCI itself and the Alliance Digital India Foundation (ADIF), which is a coalition of Indian startups critical of Big Tech dominance. A bench led by Justice P.S. Narasimha has listed the matter for a detailed hearing in November. What has the CCI accused Google of? The CCI's investigation into Google began in 2020, sparked by complaints from app developers and industry groups who alleged that Google was using its market dominance in Android to push its own services and restrict fair competition. By 2022, the Commission concluded that Google had engaged in multiple anti-competitive practices. Chief among them was the mandatory use of the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for in-app purchases on the Play Store. This meant that developers had to use Google's payment processing system, paying a commission that typically ranged between 15% and 30%, rather than integrating their own billing solutions. The regulator also found that Google exempted its own app YouTube from these billing requirements, giving them a cost advantage over competing services. This, the CCI argued, distorted the level-playing field and harmed both rival developers and consumers. In addition, the CCI highlighted that the Android licensing model required smartphone makers to pre-install Google's suite of apps — Search, Chrome, YouTube, and others — as a condition for access to the Google Play Store. According to the Commission, this bundling restricted consumer choice and suppressed innovation from alternative app providers. Based on these findings, the CCI imposed a fine of ₹936.44 crore on Google and issued a set of behavioural remedies, including directives to decouple Google's payment system from Play Store access, ensure transparency in billing data, and refrain from using such data to advantage its own services. What is Google's defence? Google rejected the CCI's conclusions, arguing that its practices were designed to enhance user experience, maintain security, and enable a sustainable business model for the Android ecosystem. The company maintained that Android is an open-source operating system, available for free to device manufacturers, and that OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) are not obligated to install Google's proprietary apps if they choose to license the core Android platform without Play Store access. It argued that pre-installing a set of Google apps was a matter of efficiency and user convenience, and did not prevent users from downloading competing apps. On the billing side, Google claimed that GPBS ensured safe and reliable transactions for users, helping to prevent fraud and reduce payment failures. The commission fees, it said, were consistent with industry standards and provided developers access to Google's global infrastructure, distribution reach, and regular security updates. Google also argued that exempting certain in-house services from GPBS was not anti-competitive but a recognition of differences in their business models. It pointed out that many leading Indian apps like PhonePe, Paytm, and Hotstar had grown successfully on Android, which shows that the market remained vibrant and competitive. What was the NCLAT's judgment? In March, the NCLAT delivered its ruling on Google's appeal against the CCI's 2022 order. The tribunal upheld several of the CCI's findings, agreeing that Google's mandatory billing policy and bundling of apps amounted to abuse of dominance. However, it reduced the financial penalty from ₹936.44 crore to ₹216.69 crore, reasoning that the original amount was disproportionate to the conduct in question. The NCLAT also struck down some of the CCI's behavioural directions, holding that certain remedies were either over-broad or lacked sufficient evidentiary basis. In May 2025, following a review petition, the tribunal reinstated two key directions that Google must be transparent about its billing data policies, and that it must not use such data to gain a competitive advantage for its own apps and services. This partial victory left all parties dissatisfied. Google sought a complete reversal of the findings, the CCI wanted its original penalties and remedies restored in full, and ADIF argued that the tribunal had gone too easy on Google. What's at stake now? The case raises fundamental questions about how much control a dominant platform like Android should have over the devices and services it supports, and to what extent regulators can intervene in the name of competition. For consumers, a ruling in favour of the CCI could mean more choice and potentially lower prices. If developers can bypass GPBS and use cheaper payment systems, they might pass on some of the savings to users. Greater transparency and restrictions on data use could also enhance privacy and fairness in app rankings and recommendations. However, industry observers warn that loosening Google's control could lead to more fragmentation in Android, with different devices offering inconsistent user experiences. For smartphone makers, the verdict could influence licensing costs and product flexibility. If the Supreme Court upholds the CCI's original remedies, OEMs might gain more leeway to pre-install competing services or experiment with alternative Android versions without losing access to the Play Store. This could be especially significant for smaller Indian brands that have struggled to differentiate themselves in a Google-centric ecosystem. For Indian startups and app developers, the case represents an opportunity to level the playing field against a global giant. ADIF has argued that Google's policies not only limit payment options but also give it an undue edge in promoting its own apps. A strong pro-CCI ruling could give local companies better bargaining power and distribution access. For Google, the stakes go beyond India. The country is one of its largest markets by user base, and an adverse ruling here could trigger similar regulatory demands in other jurisdictions. It could also force Google to reconsider its global Android business model, especially if courts require it to unbundle services or open its billing systems. What's the road ahead? The Supreme Court's hearings in November will likely examine both the legal interpretation of 'abuse of dominance' under Indian competition law and the economic realities of platform markets. Whatever the outcome, the decision will set an important precedent for how India balances innovation, consumer protection, and market fairness in the digital era. With Android powering over 95% of smartphones in the country, the Court's ruling will directly influence how hundreds of millions of Indians access apps, make payments, and use mobile services in the years to come. If the case ends with strong enforcement of the CCI's original directions, India could emerge as a leading example of robust digital market regulation outside the EU. On the other hand, if the Court sides with Google, it will reaffirm the status quo.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
From kitchen makeovers to balcony extensions: How home renovations can reduce capital gains tax for property sellers
In 2023, Neha Mehta sold her 1,020 sq ft flat in Pune's Kothrud for ₹78 lakh. Two years earlier, she had invested ₹6.5 lakh in major renovations, installing a modular kitchen, replacing old tiles with vitrified flooring, enclosing the balcony with sliding glass doors, and upgrading the plumbing and wiring to modern standards. Planning to sell property? For capital gains tax, home renovation or other capital expenses count as cost of improvement and can be added to the acquisition cost. (Photo for representative purposes only)(Pixabay) When calculating her capital gains tax, she included these expenses to her cost of acquisition as 'cost of improvement.' She kept detailed, itemised GST-compliant invoices and made all payments via bank transfer. The Income Tax Department flagged her return for review due to the sizable deduction, but the claim was accepted in full. Neha's case shows that well-documented, value-enhancing renovations can successfully reduce capital gains tax even under scrutiny. Capital upgrades, not routine repairs For the purposes of computing capital gains taxes, home renovation expenses or expenses of capital nature shall be regarded as cost of improvement of the asset and can be added to cost of acquisition. Such renovation expenses may include expenses relating to structural additions, alterations, and upgrades, further constructions and fixtures that increase the value of the asset. Such expenses should not be in the nature of routine repair, maintenance or cleaning. In essence, only capital expenditure improving or adding to the property's value can be added to the cost of acquisition/improvement as eligible expenses. 'Routine maintenance, repairs, whitewashing, painting (unless as part of a major renovation), property tax, utility bills, and expenses claimed under other tax heads are not eligible for offsetting capital gains,' says Alay Razvi, managing partner, Accord Juris, a law firm. Generally, the current owner cannot claim renovation expenses incurred by the previous owner as the same would already be claimed as cost of improvement while computing capital gains taxes for the previous owner. 'However, in case of inherited property, where the cost of acquisition of the previous owner is deemed to be the cost of acquisition of the current owner, then any renovation expenses incurred by the previous owner can be claimed as cost of improvement by the current owner, says SR Patnaik, Partner (head - taxation), Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, a law firm. GST bills must be clear Since 'renovation' is deemed as 'construction' under GST, vague or generic invoice descriptions can lead to denial of eligible credit. 'Composite invoices should be avoided, as they hinder segregation of eligible items. Clear, itemized documentation is crucial to substantiate ITC claims during GST assessments,' says Karan Sarawagi, Advocate, Bombay High court. GST Invoices with details may be helpful in proving the authenticity of capital nature of expenses helps identify and justify costs. 'Date of purchase justifying the indexation claim when it was purchased and proper documentation avoids disallowances of claims,' says Jain. Also Read: Planning to sell a property gifted by your parents? This is the amount of tax that you will have to pay Further, obtain municipal permissions, completion certificates. Take before-and-after photos if possible. 'Avoid claiming personal/lifestyle expenses as property improvement. Keep all banking/payment records,' says Razvi. Renovation expenses may include expenses relating to structural additions, alterations, and upgrades, further constructions and fixtures that increase the value of the asset.(HT Graphics) Big claims draw scrutiny There may be a likelihood of tax scrutiny if the renovation expenses are very high without any proportionate improvement of property and there are no adequate invoices or documentation to show such expenses. 'Claiming renovation expenses, especially large or unusual ones, can increase the likelihood of tax scrutiny, particularly when used to reduce capital gains on property sales. However, with proper documentation and strategy, taxpayers can safeguard themselves effectively,' says Vivek Jalan, Partner Tax Connect Advisory Services, a professional services firm. Anagh Pal is a personal finance expert who writes on real estate, tax, insurance, mutual funds and other topics
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Business Standard
India's tax reform needs more economic focus, less political manoeuvring
Over eight years later, GST has fallen short of expectations, prompting the government to appoint Home Minister Amit Shah to lead negotiations for its reform Bloomberg Prime Minister Narendra Modi has often described the reform of India's indirect taxes as his landmark achievement. In 2017, a patchwork of national, state- and local-level sales and excise levies were replaced by a single goods and services tax that economists claimed would increase government revenue while also being business friendly. More than eight years on, it has become clear the GST hasn't met expectations. The government recently announced that Modi's right-hand man, Home Minister Amit Shah, would be put in charge of negotiations to fix it. This is both good and bad news. It's good news that Modi is willing to accept some reform of the GST is necessary — it isn't common for populists to admit that something they did needs improving. It's also interesting that the home minister, who is the establishment's go-to man for knotty political problems, has been put in charge. Shah has always been Modi's enforcer, and has never run an economic ministry; but he has a reputation for getting things done. For example, the government tried and failed for years to privatize state-owned Air India, and only managed when Shah oversaw the process. It had nothing to do with his official portfolio — he just had the political stature to push through difficult changes. The bad news, however, is that the GST reform doesn't need those instincts. It would benefit from less politics and more economics. Partisan compromises caused the system to underperform in the first place. Economists wanted India's mess of indirect taxes to be replaced with a single, national value-added tax that would apply to all goods and services across the country and be evaluated by a single bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the constitution assigns state governments the right to impose indirect taxes, and not the federal authorities. Officials in New Delhi eventually had to work out a messy compromise to get state governments on board. India doesn't have one GST, but three — one for the central government, one for the states, and one for in-between transactions. Each of these has its own officials, tax forms, and filing requirements. Worse, instead of a single simple rate, the GST eventually went into effect with four, five, or even more slabs depending on what you included. Instead of applying to all goods and services, some big-ticket items — fuel, alcohol and electricity among them — were excluded. As a result, the government never collected as much money from the new system as it hoped. It wasn't until last year that actual indirect tax collections crossed 6 per cent of GDP, the level they had been when the GST was introduced. For businesses, some things have gotten easier — exporters get quick refunds on the taxes they pay, for example. But fraud has also exploded. Almost 10 per cent of the tax that's collected is fraudulently claimed as refunds. Sometimes traders buy and submit counterfeit invoices for inputs that entitle them to tax credits. Other firms turn in bills that show goods being transferred from one company to another, their value being inflated every time — except these are all shell companies, and the goods in question don't exist. They then claim input tax credits on these high, imaginary transactions. On one occasion, fraudsters registered 246 separate dummy firms that investigators had to untangle. The multiple different tiers don't help, either. Fraudsters can also mislabel goods to evade taxes. The honest have to deal with absurd acts of categorization. Last year, for example, officials 'clarified' that sales of popcorn would be charged at a 5 per cent rate, unless it was sold in a pre-labelled package, when it would be charged at 12 per cent — except if it was caramel flavored, in which case the rate was 18 per cent. The economist who had served as Modi's advisor at the time the GST was introduced described this as a 'national tragedy, violating the spirit of the Good and Simple Tax the GST was meant to be.' The often-confusing nature of the system, as well as the poor digital infrastructure set up for payments and reporting, mean that smaller companies suffer disproportionately. Opposition politicians often claim that onerous GST requirements are driving small enterprises out of business. Not all big business is happy, either. Multinational companies can run afoul of complicated definitions of what counts as an exported service. Infosys Ltd. and some foreign airlines operating in India were hit with tax demands for billions of dollars last year based on an unusual interpretation of the code. (Infosys said in June that the demand had been withdrawn.) The deviations from economic common sense that have marred the implementation of the GST are a consequence of political compromises. State governments are given a say in rates, and nobody has an incentive to simplify taxes, only to win populist medals by reducing the tax applicable to one good or another. At the very least, one or two of the current tax bands need to be eliminated. Ideally, the entire system should be overhauled, and exemptions, such as for petroleum products, minimized. We should end up with a single tax, applied through a single form, and at a single rate for all transactions. If Shah listens to the economists, that's what he will push through. But the chances are that he will listen to the politicians instead.
