Rajasthan High Court
For assesseeRemanded
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
Rajasthan High Court
Where SCN proposing tax demand expressly contemplated personal hearing after reply due date and assessee filed timely reply with written personal hearing request, but officer passed ex parte order without fixing such hearing or considering reply, denial of opportunity breached natural justice and vitiated assessment, mandating setting aside of order and directing fresh proceeding after affording personal hearing
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee was unaware of any tax demand leading to attachment of bank account without prior hearing, such recovery action was prima facie unsustainable as opportunity of hearing is a mandatory procedural requirement; so communication effecting attachment was to be kept in abeyance and attachment could not operate until hearing requirement was complied with
Uttarakhand High Court
Where GST registration of petitioner stood cancelled prior to issuance of show cause notice and SCN and adjudication order were served solely by uploading on portal, exclusive portal service was invalid as petitioner was no longer required to monitor portal, thus adjudication and appellate orders were quashed and revenue allowed to proceed afresh after valid service of SCN
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where ex parte orders and rectification orders were served solely by upload on GST Common Portal and petitioner claimed illiteracy and lack of knowledge, mere portal upload was insufficient for valid service for limitation as serious civil consequences were involved, and retrospective legal changes did not alter this position, thus portal-only service was not legally valid in these circumstances
Uttarakhand High Court
Where assessee-firm's GST registration was cancelled solely on ground of filing NIL returns for several months with no additional statutory breach, such action was not permissible under Section 29(2), hence the show-cause notice and cancellation order were quashed as cancellation for filing NIL returns alone is not a valid ground under the statute
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where goods in transit were intercepted and a show cause notice under section 129(3) was served, but penalty order was passed after the mandatory seven- day period, strict compliance with statutory timelines was required and delay beyond the permitted period rendered the penalty order invalid and liable to be quashed
Uttarakhand High Court
Where assessee submitted manual reply to SCN within prescribed time and adjudicating authority passed order without considering reply, technical objection regarding non-electronic filing was not accepted and non-appearance on hearing date could not justify ignoring reply, order suffered from gross violation of natural justice and stood vitiated, warranting quashing of order and remand for fresh decision considering reply
Allahabad High Court
Where registered person received notice under section 74 but was not offered any personal hearing, with 'NA' entered for hearing details and adverse order was passed, statutory mandate under section 75(4) for oral hearing before adverse decision was violated, non-filing of written reply did not negate right to oral hearing, making adverse order invalid
Calcutta High Court
Where pre-SCN, SCN, reminders and adjudication order were only uploaded under 'Additional notices and orders' tab and not in main 'Notices/Orders' tab, and personal hearing was fixed before expiry of reply period, communication was not legally adequate and denial of effective hearing violated principles of natural justice, thus, ex parte adjudication order was to be set aside and fresh order was to passed after affording hearing opportunity
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where proceedings were initiated under sections 73 and 74 of CGST, PGST and HGST for credits availed under erstwhile Haryana VAT Act, such VAT-era credits were held outside purview of GST adjudication and determination provisions, making actions under sections 73/74 without jurisdiction, and proceedings could not be sustained against petitioners
Madras High Court
Where petitioner’s bank account was provisionally attached under Section 83 and remained frozen beyond statutory one-year period, as limitation in Section 83(2) requires cessation of such attachment after one year, continued freezing was impermissible and attachment was set aside, allowing petitioner to operate account
Orissa High Court
Where proceedings under section 73 were initiated and concluded against a deceased proprietor despite departmental knowledge of death and registration amendment, and legal heir participated in proceedings, such actions were without jurisdiction and non est, since section 93 mandates liability proceedings against legal representative, thus all corresponding SCNs and orders stood quashed with liberty to initiate proper proceedings against legal heir
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed returns for input tax credit pertaining to specified periods on or before statutory cut-off date of 30.11.2021, disallowance of input tax credit solely on ground of limitation was unsustainable, and entitlement to input tax credit stood preserved subject to other eligibility requirements
Calcutta High Court
Where SCN proposing ITC reversal was issued for discrepancies flagged during relevant period but failed to specify hearing details and was uploaded under 'Additional notices and orders' tab instead of proper portal mode, ex parte order violated principles of natural justice, requiring order to be set aside and matter reconsidered after providing proper hearing opportunity
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where show cause notice or order in original was served only by uploading it under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on GST portal without acknowledgment or reply by assessee, such upload did not constitute valid service and ex parte proceedings were liable to be restored to the stage of issuance of show cause notice and in cases were appeals were dismissed on grounds of limitation, such appeals were to be restored on its original numbers
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner furnished return for March 2019 on 13.12.2019, within statutory cut-off date of 30.11.2021, entitlement to input tax credit for said period stood preserved and denial based solely on purported delay invoking limitation was unsustainable, requiring reassessment of claim in light of statutory cut-off under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Allahabad High Court
Where applicant, proprietor of areca nut trading firm, was prosecuted for alleged issuance of bogus retail invoices for B2B supplies and routing of cash via brokers, with no prior criminal history, undisclosed evasion amount, assessment pending, completed investigation, and no evidence of risk to justice, bail was justified as pre-conviction detention was not punitive and bail was rule
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee challenged summary assessment order lacking both signature of Assessing Officer and Document Identification Number, such procedural defects were found not curable under sections 160 or 169, and signature on assessment order was mandatory, rendering impugned unsigned assessment order inherently invalid and liable to be set aside
Rajasthan High Court
Where appeal against OIO could not be filed within limitation due to lack of knowledge of GST portal, appellate procedure and non-communication of order except by portal upload, delay was liable to be condoned in writ jurisdiction and appellate authority was to be directed to entertain appeal if filed within 30 days
Patna High Court
Where registration of works contractor was cancelled for non-filing of returns without affording personal hearing and SCN for revocation lacked officer identity and mandatory DIN, such cancellation and consequent rejection order were invalid, statutory mandate of hearing was not followed, appellate orders suffered from jurisdictional error, so impugned orders were set aside and registration directed to be restored GST: Where petitioner filed updated returns and paid late fee before revocation SCN, but SCN lacked officer name, designation and DIN and did not consider earlier communications regarding illness and son’s murder, such non- application of mind and procedural illegality rendered cancellation, revocation rejection and appellate orders unsustainable and registration was directed to be restored with costs, as later circular could not cure these defects retrospectively