Kerala High Court
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.
391 rulings found
Kerala High Court
Where taxpayer filed returns belatedly and had sufficient balance in electronic credit ledger, proviso to section 50(1) as inserted by Finance Act, 2021 applies retrospectively to confine interest liability only to portion of tax paid through electronic cash ledger, not on tax discharged by credit ledger, subject to verification of available credit at relevant time
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where petitioners accused of creating 26 fake firms and issuing bogus invoices causing fraudulent ITC benefit and substantial loss to revenue were in custody over seven months, with prosecution primarily based on documentary and electronic evidence and no risk of tampering or flight, coupled with no criminal antecedents, further incarceration was held unwarranted and regular bail was granted subject to conditions
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where service of GST notice and order-in-original was effected only by uploading on portal without acknowledgment or reply by assessee, mere upload did not constitute valid service as held in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh terms
Allahabad High Court
Where registered person's registration was cancelled and show cause notice for demand was served solely by uploading on GST portal, such service was inadequate as petitioner was no longer obligated to check portal, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice and quashing of demand order, with liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law
Kerala High Court
Where respondents issued a single composite show cause notice and summary covering multiple financial years, such composite notice was impermissible warranting quashing of consolidated notice and summary, with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year and exclusion of limitation period for reinitiation from issuance of composite notice till receipt of judgment copy
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner contractor executed balance work awarded after GST introduction pursuant to earlier pre-GST tender and BoQ excluded taxes, GST incidence arose post-award and lay outside quoted rates, thus reliance on inclusive rate clause was unwarranted and petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of GST actually paid, subject to proof by GST returns
Kerala High Court
Returns for January to March 2020 filed on 25-12-2020 and 29-12-2020 were within cut-off prescribed under retrospective Section 16(5) of CGST Act; hence, petitioner was entitled to ITC notwithstanding expiry of CBIC circular’s rectification window regarding GST demand orders relating to Section 16(4) time-barred ITC
Delhi High Court
Where CESTAT determined taxability of service and appeal was filed under section 35G, since precedent establishes that such appeals lie to Supreme Court under section 35L, and appellant cited no contrary statutory provision or binding precedent, appeal before High Court was not maintainable and appellant was relegated to remedy before Supreme Court
Gujarat High Court
Where ITC recovery was ordered against petitioners based on allegations of non-genuine inward supplies without addressing their detailed replies and documents and without granting an opportunity for personal hearing, passing a cryptic two-line order without reasons violated natural justice requirements, rendering the order unsustainable and necessitating its quashing for decision after proper hearing. GST: Where proceedings for recovery of ITC with interest were initiated without intimating date, time or venue for personal hearing even after reminders, and a cryptic order lacking reasons was passed, failure to provide statutory personal hearing before adverse decision amounted to breach of natural justice, thus vitiating adjudication and rendering impugned order liable to be quashed
Gujarat High Court
Where department issued show cause notice and demand order for alleged fraud against a deceased taxpayer after GSTIN cancellation with nil demand, and petitioner, a housewife unrelated to business, presented death certificate, both SCN and demand order were quashed as issued against deceased, with liberty to proceed per law against petitioner if necessary
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where petitioner company engaged in cement manufacturing was granted refund by order in 2022 but Revenue withheld release pending an appeal filed belatedly before Tribunal which remained unlisted, and petitioner could not be regarded as a fly-by-night operator, release of refund was directed subject to petitioner furnishing undertaking to redeposit if departmental appeal ultimately succeeded
Madras High Court
Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A was available where proceedings had been initiated under section 73 even in respect of self assessed tax arising from belated filing of GSTR 3B, non obstante clause in section 75(12) permitting direct recovery under section 79 could not exclude such cases from amnesty scheme once liability was determined under section 73 GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A having been accepted and Form GST SPL 05 issued, authorities could not subsequently declare such approval void by invoking section 161 except in contingencies specifically contemplated under Rule 164(16) or 164(17) GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being governed by mandatory timelines under Rule 164, belated filing of application or payment beyond prescribed period could not be condoned on basis of substantial compliance, and rejection of waiver claim was justified GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being subject to mandatory filing timelines under Rule 164, belated or non filing of application on plea of lack of knowledge of section 73 order could not be condoned, and writ petitions were liable to be dismissed
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where GST show cause notice and order-in-original were served only by upload on GST portal without acknowledgment or reply, such service was not valid under Section 169 read with Section 146, appeals dismissed as time barred were restored and portal-only upload did not trigger limitation, retrospective amendment had no effect as Rules did not permit such service
Madras High Court
Where SCN underlying assessment and penalty proceedings was issued by DGGI and adjudication was carried out by officer not listed in Table 5 of Notification No. 2/2022-Central Tax, there was prima facie lack of jurisdiction, making out a case for interim stay of impugned orders
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where notice and order-in-original were served only by uploading on GST portal without acknowledgment or reply, such electronic uploading was insufficient service under section 169, ex parte proceedings were to be restored to SCN stage for reply, and limitation for appeal was not triggered by such service
Tripura High Court
Where assessee reported invoices under incorrect GSTIN in GSTR-1 due to bona fide error, while taxes were duly paid and there was no loss of revenue, statutory provisions permitting rectification of inadvertent errors in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B were applicable despite portal constraints, authorities were accordingly directed to permit amendment or manual correction to remedy error
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner deposited substantial amount during investigation and rectified shortfall in statutory pre-deposit before appellate order, dismissal of appeal for non-payment of initial pre-deposit was unsustainable since procedural defects in filing requirements are curable, thus impugned appellate order was set aside and appeal restored for decision on merits
Calcutta High Court
Where ownership of seized perishable goods was not established, claimant could not seek release as owner but may seek release under alternate statutory mechanism; compelling claimant to participate in auction was unsustainable
Calcutta High Court
Where registration was cancelled solely for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months and delay in seeking writ was explained, cancellation was to be set aside on condition that petitioner files all pending returns and pays due tax, interest, fine, penalty and late fees within six weeks
Allahabad High Court
Where Tribunal did not notify next hearing date by uploaded judicial order after adjournment but proceeded ex parte without issuing fresh notice, and weekly cause list or administrative orders could not substitute statutory notice requirements under Rule 18, ex parte order was passed without due opportunity and was accordingly set aside with matter remanded