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 filed monthly return for March 2019 on 23.10.2019 and claimed input tax credit, since return was within cutoff of Section 16(5), denial based on Section 16(4) limitation was unsustainable, requiring reconsideration and grant of input tax credit for March 2019 if otherwise eligible
Rajasthan High Court
Where real estate developer received show cause notice and order uploaded on portal without any digital or physical signature and recovery initiated, such unsigned documents lacked statutory authentication under Rule 26(3) and constituted a jurisdictional defect, rendering SCN, order, recovery notice and consequent bank attachment invalid and liable to be quashed
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee's refund of tax paid on export of services was rejected under Rule 96, since Rule 96(10) had been omitted without any saving or sunset clause, ongoing restriction could not be maintained and refund could not be denied in view of Supreme Court's decision that proceedings under an omitted rule cannot continue in absence of any saving provision
Calcutta High Court
Where electrical line repair and maintenance services had been completed in 2015 before introduction of GST, subsequent approval and billing in 2019 could not alter date of supply or bring completed services within GST regime, consequently payment withheld for want of GST registration was directed to be released with interest after deducting tax, if any, applicable under pre-GST regime
Delhi High Court
Where penalty-only SCNs were issued prior to introduction of pre-deposit requirement for appeals, such pre-deposit condition could not apply retrospectively and GSTAT must entertain appeals in penalty-only cases arising from such SCNs without insisting on pre-deposit, ensuring appellate right was unaffected by whether first or second appeal was involved
Gauhati High Court
Where GST registration of transport service provider was cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns and period for seeking revocation had expired, cancellation order was to be set aside and registration was to be restored subject to filing all pending returns within 30 days and petitioner remained liable for tax, interest, penalty and late fees
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner filed appeal against adjudication order after delay due to serious illness of business manager, having paid mandatory pre-deposit and established sufficient cause, dismissal on limitation ground without considering circumstances was hyper-technical and not justified, thus, delay deserved to be condoned and appeal was to be restored for merit-based hearing
Gauhati High Court
Where authorities seized cash, along with other items, during search under section 67 but cash did not fall within permissible articles for seizure, such action was illegal and, although cash was refunded before adjudication, petitioner was entitled to interest for period of illegal withholding and respondent authorities were required to compute and pay such interest. GST: Where search under section 67 resulted in seizure of mobile phones, pen drives and a bank card, and since SCN was already issued, continued retention of seized goods was unwarranted and Investigating Officer was required to arrange immediate release of said items to petitioner
Gauhati High Court
Where registration of petitioner engaged in works contract services was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months during 2023-25 amid acute financial hardship, cancellation was set aside restoring registration, subject to filing all pending returns within 30 days, with liability for applicable tax, penalty, interest and late fees maintained from date of order
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner's registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns and appeal for restoration was dismissed as time barred, writ relief was allowed by setting aside cancellation on condition that all pending returns be filed within 30 days with requisite payments, and limitation for demand under Sections 73(10)/74(10) to run from date of present order except for period governed by Section 44
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged reversal of input tax credit for delayed return filing and subsequently filed rectification application after retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) and 16(6) from 1 July 2017, with return filed within extended period and no revenue dispute on timing, rejection of appeal ignoring retrospective extension and rectification was perverse and orders were set aside
Bombay High Court
Where film producer gave licensed rights to distributors to broadcast and show cinematographic films for a limited term and supplied content via encrypted hard disks or electronic links without providing software, same was to be classified as temporary licensing of IPR under SAC 997332 taxable at 12 percent applied, and not as supply of information technology software taxable at 18 percent since delivery mode and content format did not satisfy statutory classification for software. GST: Where petitioner gave licensed cinematographic rights to distributors and paid GST at 12 percent under SAC 997332 before CBIC circulars clarified overlap between 12 percent (SAC 9973) and 18 percent (SAC 9996) rates, such circulars would be binding and applicable to entire licensing chain; so confining benefit only to distributor-exhibitor transaction and not to producer-distributor transaction was contrary to law and not justified
Calcutta High Court
Where statutory appeal was filed after mandatory pre-deposit but delayed due to serious illness of person entrusted with GST matters, supported by medical records, dismissing the appeal solely on limitation without considering sufficient cause was hyper-technical, and delay in filing appeal from date of communication deserved condonation with direction to admit appeal and decide on merits
Kerala High Court
Where consolidated show cause notice, order, and DRC-01A were issued by authorities covering multiple years in a single composite proceeding, prior rulings establish such proceedings as impermissible, necessitating separate year-wise notices, resulting in quashing of composite SCN, order, and DRC-01A with liberty to initiate fresh year-wise proceedings within revised limitation period
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order and SCN demanding tax, interest and penalty were uploaded only under portal tab 'Additional Notice and Orders' without separate intimation and showed 'NA' against personal hearing, petitioner remained unaware and could not reply, leading to breach of natural justice and quashing of order in original with matter remanded for hearing
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit for March 2019 and filed return on 02.01.2020, since this was within cut-off date of 30.11.2021 prescribed by Section 16(5), denial of input tax credit on ground of limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and order declining credit was quashed for reconsideration under Section 16(5) if otherwise eligible
Calcutta High Court
Where goods in transit were penalized at 200 percent of tax solely due to non- extension of e-waybill at time of police interception and materials showed no other lapse, such penalty violated principles of natural justice and authorities were directed to refund recovered penalty as only failure was non-extension of e-waybill validity during transit
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order confirmed tax, interest and penalty exceeding amount proposed in show-cause notice for April 2017 to March 2018, demand could not exceed SCN amount; matter remanded for fresh response by treating impugned order as SCN
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where petitioner challenged sufficiency of service by upload of notice and order-in-original only on 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab of GST portal, since issue was no longer res-integra and stood concluded in Luxmi Traders v. 192 (Punjab & Haryana), instant petition was to be disposed of in same terms
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where petitioners challenged show cause notices alleging ITC availment through fake invoices, as these notices merely reproduced statutory phrases of fraud or suppression without disclosing foundational facts or sufficient reasoning, action was unsustainable and notices were to be quashed with liberty to respondent to issue fresh notices in accordance with law