Andhra Pradesh 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
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Best-judgment assessment raising GST demand was deemed withdrawn where petitioner subsequently filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and paid tax, interest and late fee, though beyond 30 days; hence, no recovery could be initiated or continued under assessment order
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where due to proprietor's hospitalization, appeal was filed with 17 days delay beyond period 30 days prescribed under Act and authority rejected admission without examining sufficient cause or conducting an independent inquiry, delay was to be condoned considering that appeal is a valuable statutory right
Gujarat High Court
Where assessee challenged restriction of refund of unutilized ITC under Rule 89(5) to inputs only excluding input services, it was held that amendment to Rule 89(5) by Notification No. 14/2022-CT, providing a revised formula for refund of unutilized ITC including input services, was curative and classificatory with retrospective effect; accordingly, RFD-03 deficiency memos were quashed and refund claims were directed to be processed under amended Rule 89(5) read with Section 54
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioner’s original refund application filed on an earlier date was wrongly refused leading to court-directed re-filing, interest under Section 56 must be calculated from original filing date, as initial refusal cannot defer statutory interest; thus, officer’s adoption of later date for interest denial was unsustainable and interest was to be granted from date of first filing
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Where show cause notice was uploaded on GST portal under 'Additional Notices' instead of 'Notices and Orders', there was no valid service on petitioner and subsequent ex parte adjudication order and recovery notice based on such invalid service were not sustainable, leading to quashing of all such proceedings with liberty to issue fresh valid notice
Gujarat High Court
Where rules 89(4B) and 96(10) were omitted by notification without any saving clause, all proceedings including SCNs and orders under those rules lapsed ab initio, making continuation of such proceedings impermissible, thus impugned order in original and subsequent actions were to be quashed and set aside in terms of (Gujarat)
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner’s input tax credit for April 2018 to March 2019 was denied due to belated filing of returns under section 16(4), but returns for relevant months were actually filed within the relaxation cut-off period under section 16(5)., denial based on section 16(4) was not justified and assessee was entitled to ITC
Gujarat High Court
Where exporter omitted to mention IGST payment on rice export consignments in shipping bills due to inadvertence, but actual export and invoices were undisputed and refund claim was otherwise within Rule 96 criteria, entitlement to IGST refund could not be denied merely for omission in shipping bills, and refund was to be processed without requiring adjudication under Section 149 of Customs Act
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed returns for November 2018 to March 2019 before 30.11.2021 and claimed ITC for FY 2018-19, since statutory cut-off stood satisfied, refusal of ITC was not sustainable and same required reconsideration under Section 16(5) if otherwise eligible
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner claimed ITC for March 2020 and furnished return on 04.01.2021, denial of ITC solely on ground of not filing return before cut-off under section 64 was unsustainable as return was within statutory period under section 16(5) and section 65, thus order declining ITC was to be quashed and reconsideration directed if petitioner otherwise eligible
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner, a partner in firm alleged to have evaded GST by supplying goods without invoices worth Rs 53.16 crores, faced offences triable by Magistrate with maximum five-year punishment since investigation stood completed and custodial interrogation or recovery was no longer needed, bail was granted as trial would take time
Calcutta High Court
Statutory amendment to Section 16(5) retrospectively extended time;returns filed for 2018-19 before 30 November 2021 was valid and taxpayer could not be denied ITC on ground of delayed return filing GST: Where alleged short payment based on GSTR-1/GSTR-3B mismatch is claimed to have been discharged through DRC-03 and issue requires factual verification, demand cannot be sustained without such verification and matter is liable to be remanded to proper officer for fresh consideration. GST: Where denial of ITC on account of GSTR-2A/GSTR-9 mismatch involves disputed facts, including supplier's insolvency and alleged non-filing of returns, matter requires fresh examination by proper officer and cannot be decided without proper factual verification. GST: Where principal demand is set aside, consequential enhanced penalty cannot survive and issue of penalty is liable to be remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with surviving tax demand
Madras High Court
Where registered purchaser claimed ITC on supplies from identified supplier and produced bank statements, invoices, e-way bills, ledgers and GSTR-2A/2B in response to SCN issued under Section 73, reversal of ITC solely due to supplier's registration cancellation without considering produced documents or affording opportunity for additional evidence could not be sustained and order was set aside for fresh adjudication
Kerala High Court
Composite GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years was unsustainable and related demand orders being unsustainable was required to be quashed; department permitted to issue separate fresh year-wise notices
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner bank received a composite show-cause notice and adjudication order clubbing multiple financial years for alleged IGST liability involving fraud, since each financial year is a separate unit for limitation and notices cannot combine multiple years to overcome bar of limitation, such composite notice and order were held illegal and without jurisdiction and were quashed
Tripura High Court
Where department issued Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice and Order-in- Original for 2017-18 after expiry of five-year period from due date of furnishing annual return and without any notification extending limitation under Section 74 or Section 168A, such proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to law. GST: Where SGST authorities had already issued and dropped proceedings with respect to excess ITC availed for certain years and identical subject matter was included in respondent’s SCN and OIO, statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) against parallel proceedings applied, making such notices and orders without jurisdiction to that extent. GST: Bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies only where CGST and SGST proceedings involve identical subject matter; where SGST proceedings concerned GSTR- 1B/GSTR-3B mismatch and CGST proceedings related to short payment of tax, parallel CGST action was valid
Gujarat High Court
Where assessee transitioned pre-GST VAT credit to electronic credit ledger on introduction of GST regime, refund claim under Section 54(3) for such transitioned credit was impermissible due to statutory bar under second proviso to Section 142(3), and only regular GST-period ITC was eligible for refund; However, transitional VAT credit rejected should be re- credited in ECL of GST regime for future utilization under Section 140
Madras High Court
Refund of IGST on zero-rated exports could not be rejected solely on basis of Board Circular No. 37/2018, which was struck down as inconsistent with statutory provisions and Rules; rejection without examining claim under governing law was unsustainable, and matter was remanded for re-adjudication
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner-airline neither received services nor paid consideration, question whether petitioner-airline was “recipient” of CRS services and liable to IGST required determination; as issue involved jurisdiction of adjudicating authority and warranted deeper examination, writ petition was maintainable despite availability of statutory appeal
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Where applicant was arrested for alleged manufacture and misclassification of pan masala using scented supari and lime without registration, but only raw materials for scented supari were seized and machines were sealed, since evidence was documentary or electronic which was already secured and custodial interrogation was not essential, bail was to be granted as maximum punishment was five years and triple test governing grant of bail was duly satisfied