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.
6 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 Raipur
Where appellants challenged ex parte orders based on allegedly seized evidence and appellate authority dismissed appeals through identical, non-reasoned orders without dealing with seven distinct grounds or cited authorities, such non- speaking orders failed to exercise appellate jurisdiction and breached principles of natural justice, thus, considering foundational infirmities and ensuring fair opportunity, matter was to be remanded to original adjudicating authorities
GSTAT Hyderabad
Where first appellate authority, by relying on equitable powers arising from Article 226 as well as from orders of High Courts, condoned delay in filing appeals against registration cancellation beyond statutorily permissible limit, such condonation was ultra vires as first appellate authority could not invoke constitutional relief. GST: Where Department restored registrations after respondents discharged tax dues and acted upon impugned appellate orders by permitting return filings and business resumption, subsequent appeals filed by Department against condonation were infructuous as operative relief was already effected; Department could not unsettle crystallised legal positions. GST: Where registration was cancelled for non-filing returns and portal barred delayed requests for revocation, respondents could validly pursue statutory appeal under Section 107, since inability to invoke Rule 23 revocation due to procedural restrictions did not extinguish right to challenge cancellation by way 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 Hyderabad
Where penalty was imposed for alleged fake invoicing without supply and all proceedings including show cause notice, order-in-original and appellate order arose prior to 01.10.2025, no pre-deposit was required for appeal before GSTAT as proviso mandating pre-deposit for penalty-only appeals came into effect prospectively from 01.10.2025 via Finance Act, 2025