GSTAT Lucknow
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.
5 rulings found
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 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
GSTAT Kolkata
Refund of accumulated ITC claimed on export of goods could not be denied merely on basis of absence of toll plaza movements where goods were supplied under Bill To Ship To model and E way Bills, bilty copies, shipping bills, EGM details, transporter's certificate and bank statements established transportation and export; toll plaza receipts were not mandatory documents
GSTAT Thane
Where e-commerce operator transitioned pre-GST CENVAT and VAT credits to GST through TRAN-1 and no proceedings challenging eligibility of such credits were initiated or pending under erstwhile laws, initiation of recovery and denial of transitional credit solely at transition stage under GST Acts was beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable, as transitional provisions did not authorize fresh proceedings for admissibility under repealed laws. GST: Where appellant transitioned undisputed CENVAT credit via TRAN-1, authorities would be barred from reassessing correctness of erstwhile credits invoking transitional provisions, as invoice-level matching was futile for closing balances and ancillary discrepancies like mismatch of address or absence of description could not defeat transition; denial of transitioned input tax credit was unsustainable. GST: Where appellant transitioned Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) credit via TRAN-1 but later on they had to reverse it under protest being doubted by Department, denial of transition based on retrospective amendment and departmental circular was not sustainable since no notification had operationalised its exclusion and precedent of jurisdictional High Court as well as independent statutory reading supported transition, thus, making appellant's transition of KKC in order. GST: Where assessee transitioned CENVAT credit and VAT ITC balance on stock-in- trade as of 30.06.2017 and provided all requisite details without any specific objections or contrary evidence from revenue, generic allegations of missing documents could not justify denial in absence of any specific finding or material against assessee's claim.…