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 adjudication order for tax determination was passed after fixing personal hearing before expiry of reply period, with order uploaded incorrectly on portal and full demand realized by bank attachment, opportunity to respond was not afforded in compliance with statutory requirement, thus adjudication was set aside and consequential actions quashed pending proper reply and personal hearing
Gujarat High Court
Where restriction in Rule 96(10) governing IGST refund on exports was omitted without a saving clause and both the SCN and consequential order were issued after such omission, restriction could not survive for pending or subsequent proceedings and related actions were to be quashed in alignment with Goodluck India Ltd. ruling
Kerala High Court
Where assessee filed belated appeal invoking Notification No. 53/2023 allowing late appeals on payment of additional 2.5 percent but paid this amount after initial filing, rejection of appeal as time-barred without considering entitlement under notification or granting opportunity to cure payment defect was not justified, and appeal was required to be restored for reconsideration of notification eligibility
Rajasthan High Court
Where order-in-original was uploaded only on portal and petitioner became aware after recovery from Electronic Credit Ledger, resulting in 125 days delay in filing appeal under Section 107, delay was attributable to circumstances beyond control, so appeal was directed to be entertained and decided on merits if filed within prescribed time after this order
Uttarakhand High Court
Where department cancelled assessee’s registration based on a show cause notice and order containing only generic allegations of fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts without disclosing factual particulars, denial of material details violated natural justice, making such cancellation unsustainable and liable to be quashed
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioner-entity registered under section 12AA of income tax act, 1961 carried out pollution control and treatment of industrial waste, such activity is preservation of environment and falls under clause 2(r)(iv) of Chapter 99, thus services attracted Nil rate of GST as per Notification 12/2017 and levy under Notification 11/2017 was not applicable. GST: Where petitioners, having relied on charitable exemption under section 12AA of Income tax act, 1961, did not pay GST for specified period but later obtained registration and began paying tax, invocation of section 74 on grounds of mis- declaration or wilful suppression was not justified as all facts were known, there was no mala fide intent or deliberate evasion, and show cause notice was quashed
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner challenged demand for alleged excess ITC and appeal delay resulted from illness of director and order was only uploaded on portal, refusal to condone delay and decide appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice, thus delay was condoned and Appellate Authority was directed to hear appeal on merits if filed within specified period after order upload
Madras High Court
Where refund application was treated as time barred and rejected by issuance of deficiency memo at acknowledgement stage under Rule 90(3), since limitation is not a curable deficiency, proposed rejection required show cause notice under Rule 92(3) and deficiency memo on ground of limitation was not permissible, allowing liberty only for show cause notice on rejection grounds
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner filed appeal beyond condonable period due to medical ailments supported by medical certificate and appeal was dismissed as time-barred, delay was satisfactorily explained, rejection order was set aside and appeal was restored for consideration on merits after affording hearing, keeping all contentions open
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner paid Kerala Flood Cess with GSTR-3B instead of Form KFC-A and later remitted cess correctly through KFC-A, relevant date for refund limitation is date of remittance in KFC-A, so refund claim filed within two years from that date was within limitation and rejection of refund as time-barred was not justified
Madras High Court
Where GST registration was cancelled and petitioner sought restoration, following precedent in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. Appellate Deputy (Madras), cancellation was set aside and registration was directed to be restored subject to specified compliance conditions, as controversy was fully covered by that earlier decision and required no further examination on merits
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner paid Kerala Flood Cess with GSTR-3B by mistake and later correctly remitted it in KFC-A account, relevant date for refund limitation was date of correct remittance, so filing refund within two years from KFC-A payment made claim timely and rejection as time-barred was not sustainable
Karnataka High Court
Where manpower service provider deposited amounts through DRC-03 ahead of any statutory demand or fraud allegation, without DRC-04 acknowledgment and without interest or penalty as required for fraud matters, such payment was not voluntary under GST rules, thus, rejection of refund of such amount was erroneous and refund with interest was directed, keeping adjudication on underlying SCN open
Karnataka High Court
Where Class-I contractors executed civil works for State and incurred additional tax liability due to GST introduction, having remitted differential GST and with State benefiting from works, contractors acquired legal right to reimbursement, obligating State and its entities to promptly verify and reimburse differential GST confined to incremental liability arising from GST transition
Bombay High Court
Where assessee’s refund appeal was dismissed by Appellate Authority solely for non-attendance without addressing merits or providing a speaking order, such non-speaking dismissal violated statutory mandate and principles of natural justice, warranting quashing of impugned order and restoration of appeal for merit-based adjudication
Patna High Court
Where petitioner failed to file returns for six months and SCN granting 30 days to reply simultaneously fixed personal hearing before expiry of said period, subsequent cancellation of registration was held violative of principles of natural justice as hearing was fixed merely as empty formality, and petitioner was permitted to seek revocation of cancellation
Bombay High Court
Where pre-deposit was made for appeal and First Appellate Authority dropped part of tax demand with no departmental appeal against that portion, petitioner was entitled to proportionate refund of pre-deposit for amount set aside, as insistence on finality for entire proceedings was erroneous and retention of such amount was unauthorized in law
Madras High Court
Where petitioner was denied input tax credit solely due to filing returns beyond original statutory time under section 16(4), but subsequent statutory amendment under section 16(5) fixed new timeline linked to return due date, denial of ITC based on prior bar was not sustainable and disallowance was set aside to that extent
Madras High Court
Where petitioner was denied ITC on inputs used for construction of property intended for lease or license on grounds of blocked credit for immovable property, and Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 where construction is for own use or as builder's business premises, orders made without considering said principle required fresh evaluation and same were to be set aside GST: Where revenue recovered amounts from electronic cash and credit ledgers without issuing pre-recovery intimation in FORM GST DRC-01D and without allowing statutory 7 days for payment, such recovery violated Rule 142B and statutory recovery scheme, especially as assessment orders had been set aside, entitling petitioner to restoration of all such debited amounts
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee proved possession of invoices, receipt of goods, and payment, denial of input tax credit solely due to supplier's default in GST deposit and non-reflection in GSTR-2A was unsustainable in absence of collusion, and department ought first to proceed against defaulting supplier, making impugned recovery from assessee without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed GST: Where notice invoking section 74 was issued for raising demand in respect of alleged ineligible or excess ITC for 2018-19 solely on bare assertions of fraud or wilful misstatement without particulars, and reply with supporting documents was not addressed, such notice was ex facie time-barred under section 73(10), recourse to extended limitation was without jurisdiction and proceedings were liable to be quashed