Calcutta 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
Calcutta High Court
Where order under Section 73 was passed post summary SCN without affording assessee personal hearing and without communicating date, time or venue, requirement of Section 75(4) was infringed, thus order was to be set aside with direction to adjudicate afresh upon deposit of 10 per cent of disputed tax amount as writ was filed belatedly
Uttarakhand High Court
Where assessee filed rectification application within time under Section 161 read with Notification 22/2024-CT, treating three-month timeline for disposal as mandatory was incorrect since such period is directory, hence expiry does not render authority functus officio and rejection as time-barred despite timely application was unsustainable and matter is to be decided on merits
Allahabad High Court
Where show cause notice regarding tax or ITC involving fraud was uploaded only on GST portal after cancellation of assessee's registration and no alternative service was effected, assessee was not obligated to check portal post-cancellation, thus, such service was improper, violating principles of natural justice, and impugned assessment order was to be quashed
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed returns claiming Input Tax Credit for June 2018 to March 2019 on dates prior to statutory cut-off of 30.11.2021, denial of ITC solely on ground of belated filing was not justified and petitioner was entitled to ITC subject to other eligibility and order declining ITC on limitation was to be quashed
Calcutta High Court
Where summary SCN and ex parte order were uploaded only under 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab without separate intimation resulting in delayed reply, and personal hearing was not granted despite section 75(4) mandate, cumulative procedural infirmities invalidated adjudication and required reconsideration of reply after affording personal hearing and passing a fresh reasoned order
Calcutta High Court
Where SCN and adjudication order were uploaded solely under 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab on portal without separate intimation, and appeal was dismissed on limitation grounds without a hearing on merits, such procedural lapse constituted violation of natural justice, thus quashing appellate order and directing appellate authority to admit appeal for hearing and decision on merits
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner received a composite show cause notice covering multiple financial years and challenged its legality, as separate notices were required for each assessment year and prior Division Bench decisions confirmed that such composite notices were unsustainable, same was to be quashed with liberty to authorities to issue separate notices for each relevant year
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner company paid and reversed ITC under protest pursuant to adjudicating authority's demand, but appellate authority subsequently set aside original order and allowed appeal, refund officer could not reject refund claim on grounds of non-finality or proposed departmental appeal, as appellate order remained operative and binding until stayed or modified, making refund rejection unsustainable GST: Where petitioner, after demand against it was set aside in entirety on appeal, sought refund of amounts paid by filing RFD-01 with supporting documents, refund authority wrongly rejected refund citing lack of explicit refund direction, as statutory principles mandated consequential refund whenever original demand is quashed, requiring refund authority to process claim on merits under refund mechanism without re-examining demand issues GST: Where refund claim was rejected solely because of prospective departmental appeal and capitalization entries when no appeal was pending as on refund date, there was no hearing and no formed Commissioner opinion on adverse impact due to malfeasance or fraud, rejection was unsustainable since statutory prerequisites for withholding refund were not met and subsequent appeal did not cure these deficiencies
Delhi High Court
Where assessee obtained refund of pre-deposit made during demand proceedings after partial appellate relief and sought interest on delayed refund, authorities had no discretion to deny statutory interest under Section 56 once refund was sanctioned, so liability to pay such interest stood triggered and authorities were obliged to quantify and release due interest
Kerala High Court
Where revenue issued a composite show cause notice covering multiple years to assessee for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite notice was impermissible under GST law, and therefore was quashed, with liberty to issue separate year-wise notices for each relevant period
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where goods and conveyance were detained under Section 129 and notice was served beyond mandated seven-day period from date of detention, such delay violated strict statutory requirement, vitiating entire penalty proceedings and resulting in setting aside of all consequent orders, even if delay was of only one day, as timely issuance protected primary rights against prolonged detention
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged adjudication order for July 2017 to March 2018 and no opportunity of hearing was granted despite show cause notice indicating an adverse decision, such order was unsustainable for breach of mandatory hearing requirement under statutory scheme, and matter required remand for fresh decision after granting personal hearing with attachment order quashed
Calcutta High Court
Where registration was cancelled due to six-month default in filing returns with no allegation of tax evasion and petitioner undertook to file pending returns and pay dues, such suspension or cancellation was found counterproductive to revenue, so cancellation order was set aside subject to compliance, enabling restoration of registration on fulfilment of all filing and payment requirements
Allahabad High Court
Where a company was ordered to be wound up during pendency of four GST appeals and liquidator was appointed and informed appellate authority, but appeals were decided ex parte without notice or hearing to liquidator, violation of natural justice occurred, requiring ex parte appellate orders to be set aside for fresh decision after due notice and hearing to liquidator
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and failure to respond to notice, restoration of registration was to be allowed as subject to petitioners filing all pending returns within 30 days and remained liable for arrears comprising tax, interest, penalty and late fee
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee company's GST registration was cancelled without service of show cause notice and inability to file returns was due to portal unfamiliarity, cancellation was set aside and assessee was allowed to file pending returns within 30 days, computation of statutory period to start from judgment date, but assessee remained liable for tax, penalty, interest and late fee
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where petitioners managing payout company and linked firm were accused in GST evasion network misreporting online money-gaming receipts through sham entities and dummy directors, with investigation completed, four months' custody, documentary evidence, and no risk of influence or tampering, further detention would have served no useful purpose and regular bail was to be granted subject to conditions
Kerala High Court
Where a single composite order covered multiple financial years for adjudication of demand not involving fraud, such composite order was invalid in light of Division Bench rulings, consequently order was quashed with liberty granted to issue separate notices for each relevant financial year
Madras High Court
Where adjudication order confirmed tax, interest and penalty, and assessee paid tax and interest leaving only penalty unpaid, DRC-07 was issued solely for penalty, rejection of appeal for non-payment of 10 percent pre-deposit of penalty was unsustainable as proviso to Section 107(6) applies only where order demands penalty without any tax, thus appeal was to be restored for adjudication on merits
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where registered person's GST registration was cancelled retrospectively without SCN proposing retrospective effect, such retrospective cancellation was unsustainable in law and the impugned cancellation order was to be quashed, with liberty to authorities to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with law