Calcutta 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
Calcutta High Court
Where proceedings under West Bengal GST Act were initiated by issuing Form GST DRC-01 omitting date, time, and venue for personal hearing and marking those as 'not applicable', thus denying petitioner an opportunity of hearing, entire assessment and demands founded on such defective show cause notice were vitiated and required to be set aside, with liberty for fresh proceedings after granting proper hearing
Telangana High Court
Where registration was cancelled for non-furnishing of returns though SCN alleged fraud, such cancellation was invalid as order rested on a ground not mentioned in SCN, breaching requirement to specify precise grounds with material, therefore SCN and cancellation order were quashed and GST registration was restored, with liberty to issue fresh SCN on proper grounds with supporting documents
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Where order dated 17.01.2025 cancelled registration retrospectively from 15.03.2022 without recording reasons for such retrospectivity in SCN or order, even though material showed no functioning unit at declared premises, retrospective cancellation was to be set aside and petitioner was entitled to a fresh reasoned decision on effective date, with actions post 17.01.2025 remaining intact
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner challenged order-in-original and GST DRC-07 summary by writ petition despite statutory remedy of appeal under section 107, petitioner was required to pursue appellate remedy and period spent in writ was to be excluded from limitation, allowing appeal to be filed within thirty days
Calcutta High Court
Where an ex parte order under Section 74 was uploaded under a wrong portal tab and thus, escaped assessee’s notice,impugned order was to be set aside and opportunity to contest SCN was granted subject to deposit of Rs. 1 lakh towards disputed tax
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee’s reply to Section 74 SCN was not considered and mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) was not granted, same vitiated DRC-07 assessment; as hearing was required where adverse decision was contemplated, order and consequential proceedings were unsustainable and were to be quashed. GST: Violation of natural justice and failure to grant mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) rendered assessment under Section 74 legally unsustainable; consequently, endorsement rejecting statutory appeal as time-barred could not survive, and assessment with all consequential proceedings was to be set aside
Kerala High Court
Where demand under section 74 and confiscation proceedings under section 130 were founded on witness statements and request for cross examination was rejected on irrelevant grounds, denial of effective opportunity vitiated adjudication and matter was liable to be remanded for fresh proceedings
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where a composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods was passed against a partnership firm providing works contract services to Government departments without issuing period-wise separate orders, such composite order was invalid and set aside, with liberty granted to initiate fresh proceedings through separate notices for each period in accordance with law
Allahabad High Court
Where assessee's registration was cancelled and business discontinued, service of show cause notice solely by uploading on GST portal was invalid since there was no obligation to check portal post-cancellation; thus, such service breached principles of natural justice and demand order was to be quashed
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner's GST registration was cancelled and statutory appeal was filed with delay of 167 days due to bona fide, uncontrollable reasons including business closure and fraud-tag impacting livelihood, and Appellate Authority otherwise lacked jurisdiction to condone such delay, non-adjudication would cause grave prejudice so delay was condoned and appeal was directed to be entertained on merits
Madras High Court
Where SCN identified excess ITC claim due to mismatch in returns and did not allege fraud or suppression, proceeding should be under section 73, not section 74, as section 74's ingredients were absent, making assessment order unsustainable and requiring remand for a fresh decision under proper section with liberty for statutory reliefs
Madras High Court
Where registered person inadvertently paid tax under IGST instead of splitting payment into CGST and SGST, and entire tax liability stood discharged within prescribed period, IGST paid was to be appropriated towards correct heads without requirement of fresh payment and re-refund, as statutory refund scheme applies only to inter-State to intra-State reclassification and not mere wrong-head allocation
Madras High Court
Where for FY 2024-25 assessee was issued SCN invoking Section 74 after its omission and introduction of Section 74-A, direction for fresh notice under Section 74-A and due procedure was correct, but initial notice was not without jurisdiction as authority existed, only wrong provision was cited, thus proceedings to continue under correct provision with clarification
Calcutta High Court
Where ex parte assessment and appellate orders arose due to statutory notices and orders uploaded only in 'Additional Notices/Orders' tab by incorrect tabulation, and GSTN was aware of such glitch, petitioner could not be held liable for ex-parte assessment, thus, assessment as well as appellate orders were unsustainable for breach of natural justice and both orders were to be set aside with liberty to revenue to issue fresh notice
Allahabad High Court
Where penalty order imposed amount exceeding what was proposed in show- cause notice, since statute bars confirming liability beyond SCN, such excess imposition suffered from jurisdictional error
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee was subjected to assessment for multiple tax periods and a common assessment order was passed clubbing separate periods under both CGST and APGST, such composite order was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside, requiring fresh proceedings period-wise in accordance with law
Kerala High Court
Where a registered person amended GST registration to include premises using allegedly fabricated permission letters postdating father’s demise, since alleged fraud related only to amendment and not initial registration, cancelling only the fraudulent amendment while retaining original registration and allowing fresh amendment balanced justice and caused no prejudice to parties
Kerala High Court
Where a dealer received a composite notice and order-in-original for multiple years under CGST/KGST, such composite proceedings were unsustainable as per settled law, so the impugned order, notice, and summary were quashed and authorities allowed to issue fresh year-wise notices, with benefit of Section 16(5) if returns filed by 30.11.2021 and limitation period suitably adjusted. GST: Where petitioner was denied ITC for certain months on limitation grounds though returns were furnished by 30.11.2021 and Section 16(5) benefit was claimed, order and related notices were quashed and respondents were to reconsider eligibility for ITC for each year, granting Section 16(5) benefit if timely filing is verified, excluding specified period for limitation computation
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Where multiple authorities initiated proceedings on alleged fake ITC involving same subject matter against petitioner, once show cause notice was issued by designated authority, that authority had precedence to complete proceedings and actions of other authorities were to follow outcome of those SCN proceedings, ensuring single-stream adjudication without parallel inquiries
Telangana High Court
Where tech-park premises were leased with amenities and furniture to IT companies under composite rental agreements granting only permission to use without possession or control, with common and non-exclusively deliverable facilities, no transfer of right to use goods occurred; receipts arose from service contracts were not amenable to sales tax