Delhi 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
Delhi High Court
Where assessee challenged validity of SCN and order solely served by uploading on GST portal without proof of actual intimation or receipt and no reply was filed, portal-only service absent acknowledgement was not considered sufficient, thus order was to be set aside with opportunity to file reply to SCN
Calcutta High Court
Where a single composite show cause notice under section 74 read with section 122 covered multiple financial years and was followed by year-wise DRC-01 summaries and demand order, issuance of such composite notice was beyond jurisdiction under CGST Act, making entire proceedings including demand order and DRC-01 summaries void and same were to be quashed
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where construction company’s electronic credit ledger was blocked under Rule 86A by Additional Commissioner without recorded reasons or prior hearing, such action, though Rule 86A does not specify hearing, violated principles of natural justice due to serious civil consequences, and order was set aside as arbitrary and passed in breach of audi alteram partem
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioners running a firm for battery recycling faced allegations of fictitious suppliers, bogus ITC and supplier untraceability, since petitioners held valid GST registration, cancellation or closure of suppliers post-supply did not per se disentitle ITC absent proof of collusion, had cooperated and had no antecedents, custodial interrogation for compoundable offences with maximum five-year term was unwarranted; Anticipatory bail was to be granted subject to conditions
Delhi High Court
Where notice for cancellation of registration was only uploaded on portal without proof of receipt or acknowledgement, such mere portal upload did not constitute valid service of notice, and petitioner was entitled to apply for restoration of registration with such application to be considered on merits without being affected by limitation
Madras High Court
Where petitioner filed March 2019 return on 30.10.2019 and was denied ITC due to limitation, retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) by Act 15 of 2024, along with Notification 17/2024-CT and Circular 237/31/2024, extended ITC time limit for FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 up to 30.11.2021, rendering limitation-based disallowance unsustainable
Uttarakhand High Court
Where department served show-cause notice solely by uploading it on GST portal after cancellation of assessee's registration, despite statute prescribing multiple valid modes of service and there was no obligation on a non-registered person to monitor portal, such portal-only service was invalid and failure to grant opportunity of personal hearing rendered adjudication order unsustainable and liable to be quashed
Madras High Court
Where SEZ unit exported information technology services on payment of IGST after utilising ITC distributed through ISD mechanism, it was held entitled to claim refund under zero-rated supply provisions as proviso restricting refund to supplier applied only to direct supplies to SEZ and petitioner qualified for zero-rated refund route
Rajasthan High Court
Where assessee filed statutory appeal after inordinate delay contending non- service of order as it was only uploaded on GST portal and became aware only upon bank account attachment, writ jurisdiction permitted condonation since delay arose from factors beyond control and denying appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice, so delay in filing was condoned and matter remitted for hearing subject to pre-deposit conditions
Allahabad High Court
Where GST demand and penalty proceedings for alleged fake ITC based on MIS Portal and e-way bill analysis were initiated and prosecution regime was available under GST law, parallel prosecution and cognizance under BNS for same facts could not continue, so charge sheet and cognizance order in BNS proceedings were quashed in view of primacy of special statute
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner faced SCN and order alleging wrongful ITC under Section 74, but all documents including SCN, order and reminders on portal lacked digital or physical signatures and carried only a reference number, absence of mandated authentication deprived them of legal existence, rendering all actions non est and all such documents and consequential actions were set aside with liberty to proceed afresh as per law. GST: Where SCN and adjudication order alleging wrongful ITC and imposing demand, interest and penalty were only uploaded under Additional Notices And Orders tab without authenticated service, petitioner remained uninformed and was denied opportunity of personal hearing, such violation of statutory mandate and natural justice warranted setting aside of SCN, adjudication order and recovery, regardless of availability of appellate remedy
Allahabad High Court
Where authorities alleged firm availed and passed on fake ITC through bogus invoices and initiated simultaneous GST demand and BNS prosecution based on same facts, since genesis was GST non-payment and BNSS mandates such offences be investigated under special enactments, prosecution under BNS for same conduct was barred and all parallel criminal proceedings under general law were quashed against applicant
Allahabad High Court
Where applicant accused of availing fraudulent input tax credit on invoices of non-existent firms was in custody after investigation completion, no evidence showed likelihood of tampering, intimidation or evasion, assessment was not initiated, maximum punishment was five years, and trial was unlikely soon, bail was justified considering presumption of innocence, speedy trial, and bail as rule
Delhi High Court
Where adjudication was challenged on ground that show cause notice was not duly served, depriving petitioner of opportunity to reply and liability was presumed by respondent without valid service, writ forum confined issue to validity of service and limitation, and as per Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh [2026] 188 was required to be addressed accordingly
Uttarakhand High Court
Where petitioner's registration was cancelled and adjudication order was passed without affording personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) and service of notice occurred only through portal after cancellation, such order was to be quashed and matter was to be decided afresh after granting proper personal hearing in accordance with law
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner, after transitioning valid CENVAT credit into Electronic Credit Ledger, discharged appeal pre-deposit by debiting this credit, such payment constituted valid compliance as there was no statutory mandate restricting mode to cash, and CBIC administrative instruction could not override statutory provisions or vested credit rights, thus Tribunal’s rejection of such pre-deposit ground was unsustainable and same was to be quashed
Gauhati High Court
Power conferred under section 67(4) can only be exercised upon initiation of search proceedings and so long search proceedings are continuing, keeping premises of petitioner sealed for last four months was illegal and against mandate of section 67(4), as power under Section 67(4) ceases to exist once search proceedings culminated with seizure of goods, documents, books or things
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where service of show cause notice and order was effected solely by uploading on GST portal without acknowledgement or response, such portal service was not valid as per Rules of 2017, did not trigger limitation for appeals, and orders passed ex parte in such cases warranted restoration to show cause notice stage for proper adjudication
Karnataka High Court
Where a contractor under a works contract faced additional tax burden due to transition from VAT to GST, having paid differential GST post-regime change, contractor acquired legal right to reimbursement from State, and State as beneficiary is obliged to reimburse the contractor to the extent of GST-attributable liability, subject to verification
Uttarakhand High Court
Where assessee's GST registration was cancelled, appeal was dismissed only on limitation grounds and assessee expressed readiness to file all pending returns and pay entire tax, interest and penalty, liberty to apply for revocation was permitted with direction that authority consider revocation application per statutory scheme after compliance by assessee