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.
8 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 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 Bengaluru
Where appellant, facing ITC mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, admitted oversight and paid tax with interest before SCN, but was issued SCN invoking Section 74 for suppression and penalized 100 percent, such invocation was unsustainable since no fraud, mis-statement or deliberate suppression was established and case fell under Section 73, rendering Section 74 action and penalty invalid
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where an assessee made pre-SCN payment of tax and interest for excess ITC and irregular TRAN-1 credit found in audit and there was no evidence of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression with intent, penalty under fraud provisions was not sustainable as mere audit detection does not amount to suppression, and voluntary payment warranted immunity from penalty under general provisions
GSTAT Lucknow
Where summary of proposed demand (DRC-01) was uploaded to appellant account without issuance of statutory show cause notice to correct taxable person, and summary was accompanied by SCN addressed to different taxpayer, failure to issue SCN and provide opportunity rendered demand proceedings void ab initio and entire assessment with tax, interest and penalty was set aside. GST: Where ITC of CGST and SGST was denied solely due to GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch without verifying possession of invoices, receipt of supplies or supplier tax payment as required by Section 16 and relevant Circular, and SCN was wrongly issued, such denial was unsustainable as non-reflection in GSTR-2A alone could not defeat ITC claim
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where final ITC demand under section 73 was confirmed under CGST and SGST heads on basis of a separate working treating ITC of 2018-19 as claimed in 2019-20, without explaining abandonment of primary IGST reconciliation or basis of computation, such demand was held unsustainable as adjudicating authority had failed to establish computation from books and records GST: Where ITC was denied merely on account of mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, authorities having failed to conduct any enquiry into concerned suppliers or their tax payments and having not properly examined appellant’s reconciliation, such mismatch could justify verification but could not by itself be treated as conclusive proof of wrongful availment of ITC GST: Where demand under section 73 was confirmed under CGST and SGST despite appellant’s reply and reconciliation being confined to IGST, and authorities failed to consider reconciliation or resolve inconsistency between two computations, demand was held unsustainable as appellant had not been given proper opportunity to contest CGST and SGST liability GST: Where for Financial Year 2019-20 mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A was alleged and demand was confirmed by adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority, authorities having failed to establish breach of section 16(2)(c) and section 16(2)(aa) being inapplicable for the relevant period, impugned adjudication and appellate orders were to be set aside and matter was to be remanded for fresh adjudication strictly confined to show-cause notice GST: Where ITC dispute for Financial Year 2019-20 was decided against appellant for non-production of supplier certificates prescribed under CBI…
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where assessee claimed ITC on 2017-18 invoices in 2018-19 which matched legal timeline, and denial was based only on GSTR-2A non-reflection without verifying supplier payment or invoices, such denial was unsustainable because GSTR-2A was merely facilitative and demand could not be sustained without proper invoice-wise verification as per statutory circular GST: Where assessee was proceeded for excess ITC due to GSTR-3B versus GSTR- 2A mismatch and Order-in-Original was passed without granting personal hearing as required when adverse decision was contemplated, absence of such hearing itself vitiated order, rendering it unsustainable in law and necessitating its setting aside GST: Where assessee faced demand for excess ITC based on GSTR-3B and GSTR- 2A mismatch, and proceedings were initiated directly based on audit reference with proper demand notices but without scrutiny notice in ASMT-10, absence of ASMT-10 notice did not invalidate proceedings as demand initiation was independent of return scrutiny, thus, issue was answered against assessee
GSTAT Lucknow
Where assessee's ITC allocation between IGST, CGST and SGST showed head- wise mismatch but total eligible ITC in electronic credit ledger equaled claimed ITC, such mismatch did not constitute excess ITC and principal demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained in absence of actual excess availment, as clarified by CBIC and supported by Rule 88B