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 petitioner, a registered taxpayer, filed returns for April 2018 to March 2019 within the extended cut-off dates prescribed under statutory extension by Section 168A of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, benefit of input tax credit cannot be denied by invoking Section 16(4) limitation, as all returns were within the prescribed extended period
Karnataka High Court
DRC-13 garnishee notices could not be issued against a private limited company, distinct from deceased’s proprietary concern, for recovery of latter’s GST dues; as adjudication orders also failed to consider post-death liability, DRC-13 notices, orders and DRC-07 summaries were quashed, with proceedings restored for fresh decision. GST: GST adjudication orders were quashed where, despite sole proprietor’s death being intimated, authorities failed to examine applicability of Section 93(1)(a)/(b) before proceeding against alleged legal heirs; objection to multiple SCNs for same period was left open for consideration after detailed replies, with proceedings restored for fresh decision
Allahabad High Court
Arrest for alleged clandestine manufacture and cess evasion would be unlawful where mandatory BNSS safeguards were breached which included defective arrest memo, inconsistent arrest time, absence of family intimation and right-to-counsel recital, post-facto authorization and unsupported evasion quantification; release was ordered
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioners challenged show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration on ground that notice was vague and did not specify statutory provisions or rules allegedly violated, such foundational notice lacking material particulars was unsustainable in law and therefore set aside, without precluding authorities from initiating fresh action as per CGST Act and Rules upon proven infraction
Patna High Court
Where petitioner challenged adjudication and recovery orders by writ, withdrawal was permitted with liberty to file statutory appeal before Appellate Authority, excluding period spent in writ from limitation computation and allowing condonation, but re-agitation of previously adjudicated contention was not permitted, while all other contentions remained open for appeal consideration. GST: Where petitioner sought refund of tax recovered during statutory appeal period but filed writ after three months and only within the condonable one-month period, writ registration after defect removal did not cure limitation default, and refund was denied as petitioner failed to approach authority within statutory appeal window prescribed for remedy
Patna High Court
Where assessee's registration was cancelled based solely on uploading of show cause notice on GST portal without service by e-mail or registered post or personal hearing, portal upload was insufficient for valid service, and settled law required personal service by prescribed modes, making cancellation order invalid and requiring re-issuance of SCN with opportunity for hearing and reasoned decision
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where show cause notice under section 74 did not disclose specific reasons and relied-upon documents were not supplied to petitioner, statutory requirement was not fulfilled and denial of opportunity vitiated proceedings, rendering consequent recovery and bank account attachment legally unsustainable and requiring fresh issuance of show cause notice with specific reasons
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner, a sole proprietorship trading in oil, faced recovery of GST without any notice in Form GST ASMT-10 and learned of proceedings only after recovery, absence of mandatory notice and opportunity to explain discrepancies rendered adjudication and recovery actions invalid, leading to quashing of demands with liberty for fresh proceedings as per law
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where assessment order under Section 73 was passed solely on basis of only a summary show cause notice without a separate notice specifying reasons as mandated, non-compliance with statutory requirements of Section 73 and Rule 142 rendered assessment proceedings unsustainable, resulting in quashing of assessment order and summary notice, with liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order and related notices were uploaded only under portal tab 'Additional Notices and Orders' resulting in petitioner being unaware and not given effective hearing, action of recovery from Electronic Credit Ledger and subsequent orders amounted to violation of natural justice, so all such orders and recovery notices were quashed and matter was remitted for fresh hearing
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner received a consolidated show cause notice and consequential orders for multiple financial years for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, in light of Division Bench rulings prohibiting composite notices for multiple years, such consolidated notice and orders were quashed with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year and limitation period adjusted accordingly
Kerala High Court
Where authorities issued a single consolidated show-cause notice and composite order-in-original for multiple financial years regarding tax or ITC not involving fraud, such composite proceedings were invalid, and consolidated notice and order were quashed with liberty to initiate separate proceedings for each financial year
Telangana High Court
Where designated partners of LLP were accused of availing fraudulent ITC with alleged fake suppliers and department sought arrest for custodial interrogation despite all documents being in custody of authority and no real risk of abscondence or tampering of evidences, since petitioner was cooperating, arrest was not warranted at this stage and anticipatory bail was to be granted subject to stringent conditions
Gauhati High Court
Where bona fide purchaser paid GST to registered seller and held valid tax invoice, denial of input tax credit solely due to seller’s failure to file returns or pay tax was not lawful, remedy lay against defaulting seller and not purchaser, thus treating ITC as excess and raising rectification demand was set aside
Calcutta High Court
Where show cause notice for tax periods was improperly served electronically under a portal tab not reasonably expected to provide notice, resulting in petitioner remaining unaware until recovery proceedings and appeal was dismissed as time-barred without merits, denial of natural justice was established, delay explained, and appellate order was quashed with direction to decide appeal on merits
Gujarat High Court
Where taxpayer deposited tax in electronic cash ledger before due dates for certain months but filed GSTR-3B belatedly, and department rejected refund of excess interest by applying Rule 88B prospectively while ignoring Arya Cotton ratio that interest under section 50 runs only till tax deposit, such rejection reflected selective denial and was unsustainable, mandating refund of excess interest deposited by petitioner along with statutory interest
Calcutta High Court
Where penalty was imposed on sole proprietorship for alleged issuance of invoices without supply and availing ITC without receipt of goods, and request for cross-examination of persons whose statements formed basis of penalty was denied, such denial amounted to gross violation of principles of natural justice, warranting setting aside of impugned order and fresh adjudication with cross-examination opportunity
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where partnership firm engaged in works contract services was issued a composite Order-in-Original and Summary in Form GST DRC-07 for two financial years without separate notices for each tax period, such orders covering multiple tax periods were invalid in law and were set aside, as separate adjudications for each period are required under GST law
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was issued and uploaded without mandatory Document Identification Number despite CBIC circular, such omission rendered order non-est and invalid, and uploading on portal could not cure defect, making assessment liable to be set aside with liberty for fresh assessment after due notice and DIN assignment
Uttarakhand High Court
Where vehicle carrying aluminium roofing sheets was intercepted and discrepancy of truncated e-way bill numbers in invoices was explained as clerical error, with goods found matching declared documents and no evasion or undue benefit shown, penalty order under Section 129 could not be sustained and refund directed after applicable deduction as per circular dated 14 September 2018