GSTAT Raipur
For assessee
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
50 rulings found
GSTAT Raipur
Where scrutiny of e-way bills and subsequent proceedings led to disputed liability for two invoices, and Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief for one invoice (GST-1399) and sustained demand for another (GST-125), with respondent not challenging relief on GST-1399 before Tribunal, only GST-125 remained in controversy, leaving relief on GST-1399 undisturbed and outside Tribunal’s purview. GST: Where assessee, accused of duplicate e-way bill generation and non-payment, specifically requested a personal hearing and submitted defence, adjudicating authority confirmed demand without granting post-reply hearing or giving reasoned decision, such order violated statutory mandate for opportunity of hearing and duty to record reasons, hence original adjudication was vitiated for non-compliance with legal requirements. GST: Where dispute survived for single invoice with two e-way bills for same vehicle, non-cancellation was admitted and no primary records or evidence were produced to prove asserted system glitch, appellate proceedings could not cure breach of statutory personal hearing at original stage, warranting limited remand for fresh determination after affording statutory hearing and considering primary evidence. GST: Where demand was confirmed on duplicate e-way bills against same invoice with unpaid tax alleged, and cancellation of the second e-way bill was raised in appeal, reference by appellate authority to statutory cancellation mechanism did not introduce a new ground, since existence and non-use of cancellation window was relevant to assess appellant's defence of unintentional duplication.…
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where consignor's goods were detained solely for e-way bill expiry due to a software error misreading destination, though all documents including correct invoices and lorry receipt were available, tax was charged and physical verification revealed no discrepancies or intent to evade, invoking detention and penalty under section 129 for this procedural lapse was invalid and demands were unsustainable
GSTAT Lucknow
Where assessee availed ITC on supplies from a vendor whose GST registration was retrospectively cancelled and limited ITC was allowed by appellate authority based on specific invoice entries and subsequent portal amendments, since no evidence established that supplies were not received or invoices were fictitious, thus in absence of legal or factual infirmity appeal against first appellate order was to be dismissed
GSTAT Agra
Where consignment of used iron was transported with valid invoice and bilty but without e-way bill on 24 November 2017, since e-way bill requirement for inter- State movement was not mandatory on that date and no evasion intent was found, detention and penalty imposed were unsustainable and revenue's appeal was to be dismissed
GSTAT Chandigarh
Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised ITC for period based on invoices issued for export supplies under bond/LUT, turnover for refund was determined by invoice date within relevant period, not actual export date, so denial on ground of subsequent export was unwarranted when export stood established and invoices fell in period, making refund allowable. GST: Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised ITC for export without payment of tax and department alleged minor inclusion of ineligible credits in Net ITC computation under rule 89(4), such ineligible ITC did not materially impact maximum refund, which remained higher than amount sanctioned, so refund grant required no disturbance and departmental appeal was dismissed
GSTAT Ranchi
Reversal of ITC (Cess) relating to earlier periods could not be deducted from Net ITC for current refund period under Rule 89(4); “input tax credit availed” would refer to credit actually availed during current period, and para 43(c) of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST could not override statute, hence, refund was properly computed
GSTAT Ranchi
Where manufacturer-exporter of mild steel billets exported goods under LUT without payment of tax causing accumulation of Cess ITC, refund of Net ITC must reflect credit availed and attributable to refund period only, so reversal of earlier period credit subsequently booked could not reduce Net ITC for relevant period, and departmental circular could not override statutory formula
GSTAT Raipur
Where appellant, a lender of housing loans, faced demand for GST on loan recoveries but invoked exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CTR Entry 27 for first time before Tribunal, exemption applied as pure legal plea could be raised at any stage and recovery of loan amounts qualified as exempt service under Entry 27 GST: Where a housing loan lender claimed that receipts treated as taxable supply were actually recoveries of principal from written-off housing loan accounts and supported this with bank records showing deposits and SARFAESI charges, failure by revenue to consider admissible certified evidence warranted remand for production and consideration of such documents for just determination of exemption claim
GSTAT Raipur
Where assessee-bank was taxed on turnover comprising amounts received as interest on deposits, loans or advances and claimed exemption under Notification 12/2017-CT(R), Entry 27, since such interest-based consideration is specifically exempted except for credit card interest, demand for GST with interest and penalty on this component was not sustainable in law. GST: Where assessee-bank claimed exemption for Rs. 3.52 crores as interest-related adjustments attributable to other States during relevant period, but failed to submit borrower-wise or State-wise supporting documents and only provided a consolidated audit report and CA certificate lacking specific findings, exemption claim was denied since evidentiary burden was not discharged and adverse inference was warranted
GSTAT Varanasi
Where goods were transported inter-state with valid e-way bill and tax invoice, and route deviation occurred to avoid hilly terrain for vehicle safety, with no evidence of intent to deliver to unauthorized recipient or evade tax, valid documents and plausible explanation precluded penalty as route choice did not violate any legal provision or indicate mala fide intent
GSTAT Lucknow
Where appellant's demand for excess ITC due to GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch was confirmed ex parte despite appellant facing FIR, judicial custody, and fire incident affecting office, absence of proper opportunity before both adjudicating and appellate authorities warranted remand for fresh hearing in interest of natural justice GST: Where demand for ITC denial was raised solely on GSTR-2A mismatch without invoice-wise or category-wise verification, despite assessee providing reconciliation, RCM credits, and supplier/CA certificates, complete disallowance was unwarranted, and authorities were required to verify supporting evidence including RCM claims and certificates, necessitating reconsideration of ITC eligibility on merits GST: Where supplier issued invoices for renting of immovable property within State but discharged tax under IGST instead of CGST and SGST and appellant availed ITC under CGST and SGST with tax paid to Government, such ITC was correctly availed as supply was intra-State, with no revenue loss, and invoices remained eligible for ITC under CGST and SGST
GSTAT Agra
Where survey at brick kilns revealed excess or unaccounted bricks and coal not recorded in books and persons present failed to produce documents, initiation of confiscation proceedings with penalty and fine under section 130 was impermissible, as proper procedure required tax determination as if supplied under section 35(6) read with sections 73 and 74, rendering confiscation unsustainable GST: Where excess or unaccounted stock found at respondents' brick kilns led to confiscation and penalty orders, and Commissioner (Appeals) quashed both confiscation and penalty due to lack of legal basis, revenue's appeals confined only to fine could not be sustained in absence of a surviving confiscation, rendering such appeals meritless and not maintainable
GSTAT Ghaziabad
Departmental appeal involving disputed tax of about Rs. 6.30 lakh was liable to dismissal at threshold, as Circulars dated 05-07-2024 and 22-05-2026 prescribed Rs. 20 lakh monetary limit and furthe, Revenue had failed to establish any exception; administrative authorisation could not override binding litigation policy
GSTAT Ghaziabad
Where State Tax Department filed appeal against penalty order relating solely to e-way bill penalty of Rs. 88,074, since disputed penalty amount was below prescribed Rs. 20 lakh monetary limit and no recognised exception or reasoned exercise of residual power was shown, appeal was rightly dismissed at threshold for failing monetary limit and absence of case-specific justification
GSTAT Ghaziabad
Where department filed appeal where GST amount in dispute was only Rs. 1.99 lakh while monetary threshold limit set for filing appeal by relevant circulars is Rs. 20 lak, since Revenue failed to prove any exception that would allow a low-value claim to proceed, appeal was to be dismissed at threshold without adjudication on merits
GSTAT Ghaziabad
Where Revenue filed appeal before GSTAT against quashing of IGST penalty of Rs. 5,78,160, same was held inadmissible as Circular No. 2425008 dated 5-7-2024 prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for departmental appeals and Revenue failed to establish that case fell within any specified exclusion or exception, consequently appeal was to be dismissed without adjudication on merits
GSTAT Lucknow
Where manufacturer of edible oils re-filed differential ITC refund claims for same periods after remand due to changes in refund formula and satisfied substantive and procedural requirements under Section 54 and Rule 89, technically rejected supplementary claims were maintainable if within limitation, and technical objections could not override substantive entitlement, thus, appellate authority's grant of refund required no interference
GSTAT Ernakulam
Where notice under section 129(3) was issued on 28-6-2019 but penalty order was passed only on 26-7-2019 after expiry of prescribed seven-day period, said time- limit was held mandatory and breach thereof vitiated entire proceedings, rendering adjudication void ab initio, thus, penalty order and appellate order were to be set aside with consequential relief
GSTAT Lucknow
Where goods in transit were detained on suspicion of reuse of invoices and e- way bills based solely on vehicle movement data and photographs, but there was no discrepancy in goods or documents and no cogent evidence of document reuse or evasion, mere suspicion could not justify detention or penalty and burden of proof remained on revenue, thus tax and penalty were not sustainable
GSTAT Ernakulam
Where appellant's goods and conveyance were detained for expired e-way bills and notice proposing penalty was issued but final order confirming demand was passed 445 days later, contravening statutory seven-day period, such a delay rendered penalty order void ab initio and a nullity in law, requiring consequential relief to appellant