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 SCN proposed penalty of Rs. 20,000 but adjudication order confirmed penalty of Rs. 96,000, confirmation of penalty beyond proposed amount was in gross violation of section 75(7), rendering order without jurisdiction, requiring setting aside of such order and remand for fresh decision after affording due hearing
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where show cause notice or order-in-original was served only through upload on GST portal without any acknowledgment or reply, such portal-only service was insufficient as held in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh [2026] 188 terms
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner filed GST return for 2018-19 on 23.10.2019 and availed ITC, denial of ITC by tax authority was unsustainable since section 16(5) allowed ITC for returns filed up to 30.11.2021, making benefit of ITC for 2018-19 period available to petitioner, thus, order denying ITC was to be set aside
Allahabad High Court
Where SCN invoking extended period for tax or ITC involving fraud was issued without detailing statutory ingredients like fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax, continuation of proceedings was unsustainable as jurisdictional preconditions were not disclosed, leading to quashing of SCN with liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law
Delhi High Court
Where provisional attachment of bank accounts was ordered under section 83 and one year had lapsed since issuance, attachment ceased by operation of law and accounts were required to be de-frozen, with competent authority to record the one- year cap and banks to de-freeze accounts automatically after expiry absent a fresh valid order
Allahabad High Court
Where petitioner's registration had been cancelled and no business was carried on thereafter, uploading show cause notice solely on GST portal post-cancellation did not constitute valid service, breaching principles of natural justice, as petitioner was under no obligation to check portal and alternative service modes were required, resulting in demand order being quashed
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner challenged show cause notice continuing a previously set aside notice under Section 104, issue had already been adjudicated by Division Bench in Gyankeer Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CE and (Raj), and with identical circumstances there was no ground to depart from that precedent, allowing writ petition and quashing impugned show cause notice
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner filed statutory appeal with delay due to pendency of rectification and personal exigency and appeal was dismissed as time-barred, considering contest to levy and specific factual circumstances, delay was to be condoned and statutory appeal was to be restored for decision on merits after hearing
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner's GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months and appeal was dismissed solely on ground of delay, since petitioner was uneducated, relied on accountant or advocate, and was genuinely unaware of cancellation, order dismissing appeal was set aside and appellate authority was directed to consider appeal on merits subject to statutory deposits
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect based on SCN that did not propose retrospective cancellation, such cancellation exceeded scope of SCN and was unsustainable, thus SCN and cancellation order were quashed, with liberty to authorities to issue fresh SCN and proceed in accordance with law, without further adjudication on merits
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner, a registered person, claimed input tax credit for February and March 2020 and furnished returns within statutory cut-off under Section 16(5), denial of ITC solely citing limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and authorities were directed to reconsider and grant ITC if otherwise eligible
Patna High Court
Where Proper Officer issued order determining tax liability and attached bank account for FY 2022-23 before due date for annual return had expired, such premature adjudication was without authority and impugned order was set aside, requiring fresh proceedings to be initiated only after due date for filing annual return had passed
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where tax determination proceedings for several periods were concluded by a single composite assessment order, such composite order was impermissible under GST law and accordingly set aside, with authorities permitted to issue separate period-wise orders after providing due opportunity and all consequential proceedings revoked
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered dealer availed input tax credit for FY 2018-19 through GSTR- 3B on 20.12.2019, and initial rejection was due to deadline of 20.10.2019, subsequent statutory relaxation after introduction of section 16(5) extended window to 30.11.2021, making dealer's availment timely and order for reversal unsustainable
Madras High Court
Where search authorization issued in respect of petitioner partnership firm under Section 67(2) lacked DIN with only a generic assertion of technical difficulty and no contemporaneous record, and DIN was neither timely generated nor communicated to noticee, mandatory requirements of DIN display, contemporaneous recording of exception, regularization, and sharing with noticee were breached, rendering authorization non-compliant; authorities to initiate fresh proceeding
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered firm was assessed for multiple financial years under a single composite order in proceedings alleging fraud under Section 74, such order was invalid as each tax period requires separate adjudication, so composite order was unsustainable and impugned order was set aside with liberty to issue separate orders for each period in accordance with law
Bombay High Court
Where garnishee proceedings and recovery notices were initiated for interest on delayed payment despite petitioner’s pending representations disputing interest liability and computation, and no decision on these representations was made by authority, matter was required to be decided by passing a reasoned order on aforesaid representations, until then, no further recovery steps could be taken
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioners, scrap-trading firm proprietors, purchased goods from validly registered suppliers with payment through banking channels, held invoices, filed GST returns, and faced allegations of bogus invoices due to subsequent supplier cancellation, ITC could not be denied without proof of fraud or collusion, and anticipatory bail was justified as custodial interrogation was unwarranted given cooperation and no prior antecedents
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner challenged Show Cause Notice and validity of Rule 96(10) regarding refund of integrated tax paid on exports, since Rule 96(10) was struck down in same was and later omitted vide a notification, continuation of proceedings under said rule was unsustainable and all notices and proceedings were to be quashed
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner was denied ITC due to delayed return filing and disallowance orders were passed before retrospective insertion of section 16(5), since new provision creates a non obstante retrospective relaxation against limitation under section 16(4), statutory right to claim ITC could not be defeated by circular or notification and petitioner was entitled to benefit of extended period if otherwise eligible