Allahabad 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
Allahabad High Court
Where registered dealer's GST registration was cancelled and no further business was conducted, uploading show cause notice only on GST portal without alternate service did not satisfy statutory requirement, resulting in breach of natural justice, so order based on such portal-only service was quashed, leaving liberty to initiate fresh proceedings as per law
Madras High Court
Where petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled and petitioner sought restoration upon compliance, cancellation was set aside and GST registration was directed to be restored subject to fulfillment of statutory compliance conditions as per precedent in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Rajasthan High Court
Where SCNs and OIO were only uploaded on portal without effective service or acknowledgment to petitioner, causing delayed appeal filing, limitation period was not triggered and appellate authority's dismissal of appeal as time-barred was unjustified, delay was condoned and appeal restored for decision on merits in line with consistent writ rulings
Allahabad High Court
Where adjudication order under Section 73 imposed penalty not proposed in show-cause notice and confirmed tax demand beyond proposal, such order was without jurisdiction due to violation of statutory bar under Section 75(7), rendering demand exceeding notice amount fundamentally illegal and liable to be set aside
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee filed rectification application for ITC after prescribed cut-off as per departmental circulars but statute provided no time limit, executive circulars imposing six-month cap could not override substantive right under Section 16(5), and rejection for delay was unsustainable so rectification application was to be reconsidered on merits unless delay was found exceptional
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where GST registration was cancelled for non-operation from declared place of business based on a show-cause notice omitting specification of date and time for personal hearing as per Form GST REG-17, such omission breached natural justice, rendering notice and cancellation order invalid despite availability of alternative remedy, thus both were quashed with liberty to proceed afresh per law
Rajasthan High Court
Where a school challenged levy and collection of GST on affiliation fees via circular and notice, and precedence established parity between school and college affiliations regarding GST applicability, levy on school affiliation fees was held unsustainable and both impugned circular and subsequent notice along with all consequential proceedings were to be quashed on the basis of parity with legal precedent
Madras High Court
Where employee was penalized for stock shortage in course of employment and GST was levied on penalty, such penalty did not constitute supply under paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II as it arose from employer-employee relationship, not supplier-recipient relationship, hence GST on such penalty is not attracted
Gujarat High Court
Rule 28(2) prescribing 1% valuation for corporate guarantees was upheld, but the words “whichever is higher” were held arbitrary and unconstitutional; valuation must instead be based on actual consideration or the deemed 1% value, as applicable. GST: GST at deemed 1% valuation under Rule 28(2) could not be levied on corporate guarantees for periods before its insertion on 26-10-2023; such retrospective levy was harsh and unfair, though levy was permissible for periods thereafter, while guarantees to foreign subsidiaries were governed by Circular No. 225/19/2024-GST. GST: Corporate guarantees furnished by holding companies to banks for subsidiaries, even without consideration, constituted taxable supplies between related persons under Section 7(1)(a) read with Schedule I; subsidiaries were recipients, and GST levy on such guarantees was upheld. GST: Execution of corporate guarantees by holding companies for subsidiaries, though without consideration, constituted “business” under Section 2(17) and Schedule I, as activities incidental or ancillary to trade include safeguarding subsidiaries’ financial interests; volume, continuity or profit motive was immaterial. GST: Corporate guarantees were not “actionable claims” excluded by Schedule III, as a guarantor’s liability is contingent and secondary, unlike a direct right to debt; hence, corporate guarantees remained taxable supplies under the GST provisions. GST: Execution of a corporate guarantee secured by a share pledge constituted a taxable supply, as the pledge merely secured performance of the guarantee…
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered dealer failed to file GSTR-3B for March 2025 and assessment was completed under Section 62, but subsequently filed the return with late fee and interest, assessment order was deemed withdrawn as per Section 62(2) and consequential proceedings were revoked, though liability for interest and late fee remained
Madras High Court
Where petitioner operating duty-free airport outlets paid service tax on licence fees and conservancy charges under pre-GST regime and filed refund claims based on CESTAT ruling but were rejected as time-barred, following a binding Division Bench precedent in Union of India v. Flemingo Duty Free Shop (P.) Ltd., [2025] 174 processed with applicable interest
Rajasthan High Court
Where assessee remained unaware of GST demand order due to it being uploaded only on portal under Additional Notices and Orders and not served manually, and e-filing of appeal stood blocked as time-barred, delay in filing appeal was condoned considering circumstances were beyond assessee's control and Appellate Authority was required to adjudicate appeal on merits
Karnataka High Court
Where property acquired by compulsory acquisition for highway widening included land with attached structure and compensation was awarded, deduction of GST from compensation was unwarranted since such expropriation did not constitute a supply of goods or services under GST scheme and no statutory basis existed for GST levy, thus GST deduction was ultra vires and liable for refund
Allahabad High Court
Where Adjudicating Authority, after passing ex parte order without considering assessee's replies, issued a rectification order without notice and sustained demand, such rectification was impermissible since it was not for an error apparent but involved merit review, denial of hearing vitiated proceedings, thus only permissible course was recall of earlier order and fresh decision after hearing
Rajasthan High Court
Where demand was confirmed against assessee and order was uploaded on portal under additional notices and orders tab, and assessee approached instant court with delay of 124 days, having satisfied that delay was due to reasons beyond control of assessee, appellate authority was to be directed to entertain appeal if same was filed within 30 days
Calcutta High Court
Where SCN was uploaded only under Additional Notice and Orders on GST portal without separate intimation and assessee consequently could not respond within prescribed time, dismissal of appeal under section 107 solely on limitation without examining merits was held unsustainable and appellate order was quashed with direction to admit appeal and decide matter on merits after hearing
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where a registered firm challenged a single composite assessment order covering multiple periods without separate orders for each period, such composite order was set aside on this ground alone, allowing respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for each period separately if so advised
Rajasthan High Court
Where order was uploaded only on GST portal without any manual service or personal hearing, and assessee became aware of recovery only after bank placed lien, limitation did not begin from portal upload without acknowledgement, so delay in filing appeal was condonable as reasons were beyond assessee's control, and Appellate Authority was to hear appeal on merits
Gujarat High Court
Where refund was rejected, rectification sought within statutory period was disposed by a reasoned order, and appeal was filed against both rejection and rectification, limitation for appeal must be computed from rectification order and not from earlier rejection, thus, appellate authority erred in treating appeal as time- barred based on original order and matter was liable for decision on merits
Gujarat High Court
Where GST demand proceedings were initiated and concluded in name of deceased sole proprietor after cancellation of registration post demise, with SCNs and orders issued on GSTN portal and premises without knowledge of legal heir housewife, all such notices and orders stood invalid and quashed, with liberty reserved to initiate proceedings against legal heir as per law