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
Excise/ST/VAT: Where reassessment notice for 2009-10 was issued based on audit objection beyond limitation period, since Section 25A does not override five-year cap in Section 25(1) and satisfaction under Section 25A still requires adherence to limitation, such notice was void as time-barred and liable to be quashed
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner partnership firm's statutory appeal against SCN adjudication was dismissed as time-barred on computed period of delay from date on which order was wrongly uploaded on portal, since precedents permitted interference despite absence of statutory power to condone further delay, dismissal of appeal in instant case was unsustainable; delay was to be condoned, and appeal was to be directed to be adjudicated on merits
Kerala High Court
Where consolidated show cause notice covered multiple financial years in a single notice and precedents mandated separate notices for each assessment year, issuing a composite SCN was impermissible and such notice was to be quashed with liberty to issue fresh year-wise notices
Madras High Court
Where assessee sought rectification of clerical and arithmetical errors in GSTR-1 for early GST periods to enable correct flow of input tax credit to customers, rectification could not be denied merely on ground of delay or absence of portal functionality and corrected returns were required to be permitted
Gauhati High Court
Where registration of petitioner providing vehicles on hire was cancelled for non-filing of returns based on a show-cause notice lacking details of default period and an order devoid of specific reasons, such non-speaking cancellation order violated statutory mandate and natural justice, warranting quashing and remand for fresh consideration, as adverse civil consequences necessitate reasoned decision
Madras High Court
Where both statutory late fee and general penalty were imposed for same delayed filing of returns, once specific late fee was prescribed and levied under law, imposition of general penalty for identical default was unwarranted and penalty orders were to be set aside while late fee remained intact
Gauhati High Court
Where director of civil construction company was arrested for alleged wrongful ITC based on fabricated invoices for NHIDCL project, all incriminating documents were already seized and petitioner remained over 15 days in custody for an offence punishable up to five years, further detention would not serve purpose and bail was granted considering adverse business impact
Gauhati High Court
Where proper officer issued only summary of SCN without serving substantive show cause notice before passing order in original under section 73(9), such determination was unsustainable and order was to be quashed requiring proper officer to issue show cause notice detailing cause of action for initiation of proceedings as mandated under section 73(1)
Telangana High Court
Recovery of GSTR-1/GSTR-3B mismatch as self-assessed tax under Explanation to Section 75(12) cannot be initiated directly under Section 79 without first issuing DRC-01B notice under Rule 88C or considering taxpayer's response; consequently, such garnishee proceedings were to be set aside
Karnataka High Court
Where registered person’s registration was cancelled based on a vague SCN lacking specific material particulars and authority ignored petitioner’s filed reply, such cancellation was unsustainable as it violated Rule 22 requiring detailed grounds and effective opportunity to respond; thus SCN and cancellation were to be quashed with liberty for fresh proceedings as per law
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner, upon receiving composite SCN alleging discrepancies and seeking personal hearing, was not granted such opportunity before demand order was passed, decision process was vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice and mandatory requirement under section 75(4), thus, impugned order was set aside and personal hearing before a new officer was directed
Kerala High Court
Where taxpayer claimed input tax credit for specific months and filed returns within special cut-off period provided under non-obstante credit provision, denial of credit on ground of general time-limit was invalid since special provision overrode general timeline and entitlement must be reconsidered based only on fulfilment of non-obstante credit criteria if otherwise eligible
Karnataka High Court
Where provisional attachment of bank account under section 83 continued beyond one year from order date, such attachment lapsed by operation of law and petitioner could operate bank account, since after expiry of statutorily limited period, no fresh provisional attachment on same cause could be issued and approaching High Courts was unnecessary for lifting such order
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner challenged assessment order for want of Assessing Officer's signature on Form GST DRC-07 and government confirmed order was unsigned, such absence of signature under CGST provisions rendered order invalid as authentication requirement under Rules mandated signature for valid service, making delay in seeking writ immaterial and order liable to be set aside
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner was served with assessment summary in FORM GST DRC-07 lacking Assessing Officer's signature and department admitted such omission, signature on such assessment order was mandatory and curative provisions could not validate unsigned order, thus impugned DRC-07 was to be set aside solely due to absence of AO signature
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was issued under GST for specified period without assessing officer’s signature and both petitioner and State confirmed absence of signature, unsigned assessment order was invalid as signature was mandatory, and curative or service provisions could not cure this defect, thus such order was to be set aside with liberty for fresh signed assessment after notice
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner filed appeal against order-in-original with delay and omitted to disclose pending rectification application due to Chartered Accountant error, omission deprived petitioner of a material ground for delay condonation, thus order dismissing appeal as time-barred was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted to appellate authority for fresh consideration of condonation application and if satisfaction, decide appeal on merits
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was served only through GST portal and unsigned by Assessing Officer, in view of precedent holding signature on assessment order mandatory, such unsigned order suffered from patent irregularities, and hence, to be set aside: assessment was remanded to AO for fresh order after due hearing subject to petitioner depositing 20% of demand amount
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where based on certain statements, financial transactions and operational links, applicant was alleged to have orchestrated creation and operation of firm for fraudulent input tax credit using bogus suppliers and invoices, since there was no unimpeachable document establishing him as proprietor while significant investigation had already been completed, regular bail was to be granted as extended custody and custodial interrogation were not required
Madras High Court
GST notifications under Sections 9 and 11 must conform to GST Council recommendations; addition of phrase “enforceable right in court of law” for taxing unregistered pulse brands exceeded Council’s 21st meeting recommendation and was held ultra vires, violating cooperative federalism. GST: GST Council has power only to recommend under Article 279A and lacks any express or implied power of ratification; purported ratification in 22nd meeting could not validate notifications levying tax issued beyond its recommendations, as ratification cannot cure an act which is void ab initio