GSTAT Chandigarh
For revenue
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.
4 rulings found
GSTAT Chandigarh
Where appellant, as Managing Director, faced personal penalty of Rs 25,000 each under section 122(3) for two company units and total amount determined against appellant did not exceed Rs 50,000, Tribunal exercised statutory discretion to refuse admission as threshold requirement was not met, resulting in dismissal of appeal
GSTAT Hyderabad
Where taxpayers filed appeals against suo motu cancellation of registration after expiry of both normal and outer condonable period, appellate authority relied on High Court Article 226 orders to condone delay, since statutory authority is bound by statute and cannot translocate extraordinary constitutional powers, condonation beyond statutory limit was ultra vires and orders were liable to be set aside GST: Where respondents complied with revocation orders and their registrations were restored, allowing them to resume returns filing, Department’s appeals against condonation became academic since legal position had changed and restoration was implemented, hence annulment would disturb settled rights and input tax credits, making appeals futile and not maintainable as matter had become infructuous
GSTAT Hyderabad
Where respondents' registrations were cancelled due to non-filing, and no timely revocation was sought, with appeals filed after expiry of both appeal period and condonable delay under Section 107, First Appellate Authority could not condone such delay beyond statutory limit, as equity and reliance on High Court orders cannot expand statutory appellate jurisdiction, making condonation ultra vires GST: Where department implemented impugned FAA orders by restoring GST registrations, and allowing respondents to file pending returns, any subsequent departmental appeal became infructuous as effective relief would disturb respondents’ restored status and commercial position, hence such appeals challenging condonation were deemed academic and not maintainable
GSTAT Chennai
Where appellant simultaneously filed appeals before first Appellate Authority and GSTAT on ground that department had initiated recovery proceedings, since appeal before Tribunal had been instituted before any order under section 107 or 108 was passed, such filing was premature and contrary to section 112(1), consequently, such appeal was to be dismissed with liberty to file afresh