Andhra Pradesh 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
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner challenged assessment order as unsigned and only portal upload was relied upon as service, absence of assessing officer's signature could not be cured by service provisions or portal-based delivery, thus impugned assessment order was invalid, and writ was entertainable on deposit of 20 percent of disputed tax, necessitating remand for fresh adjudication after hearing
Telangana High Court
Where prior writ order in petitioner’s case remanded assessment for breach of personal hearing mandate and directed adjudication of original SCN after granting hearing and considering reply, issuance of second SCN and fresh order for same year by AO was impermissible as it overreached remand scope, thus impugned order was set aside for adjudication on first SCN only with compliant hearing
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Order-in-Original due to non-issuance of show cause notice which fact was discovered only after garnishee recovery proceedings were initiated, assessee should file statutory appeal
Karnataka High Court
Where cancellation of registrations was based on SCNs issued under Rule 22(1) resting on defective or blank inspection reports, condition precedent for issuing SCN was not met, hence cancellation orders and consequential suspension were TO be quashed and proceedings were to be restored to SCN stage allowing petitioners to respond with relevant documents
Madras High Court
Where ITC was denied solely because supplier’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled though supplier was registered when supplies occurred and most transactions predated cancellation order, rejection of ITC on this sole ground without examining genuineness of supplies was unsustainable and matter required reconsideration with reasonable opportunity to petitioner
Kerala High Court
Where revenue issued a single composite show cause notice covering multiple tax periods without alleging fraud, such composite notice was unsustainable in law as per binding Division Bench precedents, and was required to be quashed with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant period, while excluding time from composite notice date to judgment delivery for limitation
Gauhati High Court
Where registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months and petitioner cited financial hardship while expressing readiness to comply with proviso to Rule 22(4), restoration relief was warranted, with restoration subject to compliance, fresh limitation to run from this order, and petitioner remaining liable for all outstanding tax, interest, penalty and late fee
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee executed works contracts for government departments and exemption was claimed under relevant service tax notification while demand was raised solely based on Income-tax Form 26AS data without independent scrutiny or recording pre-conditions for invoking extended limitation period, demand was unsustainable and assumption of jurisdiction by adjudicating authority was unauthorized
Madras High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit but filed returns belatedly and sole reason for denial was delayed filing, since statutory amendment extended time limit and petitioner filed within such extended period, rejection based solely on delay was not tenable and impugned order of denial was unsustainable
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order was not communicated to petitioner but only to its accountant who failed to relay information, leading to appeal delay until recovery action, dismissal of appeal as time-barred was unjustified since sufficient cause existed and mandatory pre-deposit was paid, warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal for substantive appellate remedy. GST: Where petitioner learned of recovery only after bank accounts were frozen and payment of mandatory pre-deposit was made before filing appeal, interference was warranted to secure justice as recovery during pendency of appeal after pre-deposit violated statutory scheme, thus delay in filing appeal deserved condonation though garnishee freeze was ordered to continue till disposal of appeal
Karnataka High Court
Where goods and conveyance were detained due to quantity mismatch and penalty was paid as per appellate order while suo motu revision was pending, release was required on protective basis on deposit of appropriate securities
Gauhati High Court
Where GST registration of a proprietorship was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months, petitioner was permitted to seek restoration by filing pending returns and paying tax, interest, penalty, and late fee as per Rule 22(4), upon which authority must consider and restore registration expeditiously, with statutory limitation to run from date of this order
Telangana High Court
Where assessee filed rectification application against original order within limitation, appeal was filed within three months of rectification rejection, and all statutory remedies were diligently pursued, dismissal of appeal as time- barred due to technical defects in memo was unjustified, and pragmatic approach called for remand for decision on merits
Gauhati High Court
Where registered proprietorship's GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns and non-response to notice after suspension, restoration may be sought by furnishing all pending returns and paying outstanding tax, interest, penalty and late fee, and upon such compliance, authority shall consider restoration as per applicable rules and directions
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee's export of services and refund eligibility were denied solely due to alleged non-furnishing of Letter of Undertaking without examining nature of transactions or actual furnishing of Letter of Undertaking as required under law, both adjudication and appellate orders were to be quashed and matter was to be remanded for fresh consideration regarding jurisdiction and refund entitlement based on Letter of Undertaking
Madras High Court
Where statute prescribed late fee for delayed annual return, separate general penalty for same default was impermissible; late fee for 995-day delay was to be upheld, but penalty component was to be set aside as it would result in duplication of statutory consequence
Kerala High Court
Where contractor who was awarded PWD works in pre-GST regime, executed same and raised invoices with GST post 01.07.2017 but GST component was withheld by government department though government circular provided for tax reimbursement on proof, contractor was entitled to reimbursement of GST for post-GST supplies upon production of GST returns
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner in construction was issued a consolidated SCN and composite order covering GST demand, interest, and penalty for multiple years, such clubbing of periods was beyond statutory jurisdiction as assessments must be period-specific, making consolidated SCN, order, and recovery void ab initio and not cured by admission or estoppel, rendering writ maintainable and quashing impugned actions
Madras High Court
Where petitioner availed input tax credit on invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A due to technical glitches acknowledged by authorities, since statutory conditions for credit were otherwise met, denial of credit was not justified; as entitlement is established under Circular 183/15/2022-GST, no interest or penalty was payable
Gauhati High Court
Where a partnership firm trading in uniforms and furniture faced cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns but subsequently filed all pending returns and was ready to comply with Rule 22(4), restoration of registration was permissible upon timely application and payment of tax arrears, interest, penalty, and late fees in line with prior judicial precedent