Andhra Pradesh 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
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner, a registered firm, was served with a composite adjudication order for multiple tax periods, since revenue did not dispute factual or legal infirmity, a single composite order for multiple periods was held unsustainable and required to be set aside, leaving authority free to issue separate orders for each period after following due process
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered manufacturer of bakery and confectionery products was subjected to a single composite assessment order for multiple tax periods from 2019 to 2022, issuance of a composite order covering more than one tax period was found impermissible, rendering such order invalid and liable to be set aside, and writ petition challenging composite order was allowed
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was passed against proprietary concern after proprietor's death, with no mandatory personal hearing to legal heirs and widow being unaware of proceedings, such order was void ab initio and lacked legal efficacy, and consequent appellate rejection as time-barred could not stand, entitling quashment of all impugned proceedings and endorsements
Karnataka High Court
Where civil contractor executed road works under contract with State and, following GST replacing VAT, paid differential GST due to regime change, contractor became entitled to reimbursement of additional GST from beneficiary State entity, as liability to bear such tax rests on service recipient and reimbursement right extends only to tax attributable to GST regime introduction, subject to verification and law
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioner’s appeal against order under section 74 was filed after limitation but within cutoff prescribed by Notification No. 53/2023 and payment condition was satisfied, notification applied to appeals pending or rejected for delay, so appellate authority erred in declining to entertain appeal, and rejection order was quashed with remand for decision on merits
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit for February and March 2019 and filed returns on 12.11.2019, since returns were submitted within cut-off prescribed by Section 16(5) which has a non-obstante clause overriding Section 16(4), limitation under Section 16(4) was inapplicable and petitioner was eligible for ITC subject to other entitlement
Allahabad High Court
Where applicant was accused of operating multiple shell firms to pass fraudulent ITC with large financial magnitude and was in custody with no prior criminal antecedents, with no assessment proceedings pending and maximum sentence of five years, bail was granted citing fair procedure, presumption of innocence, and protracted trial likelihood
Allahabad High Court
Where GST-registered person's registration was cancelled by a non-speaking order with no reasons or recorded satisfaction, such cancellation violated Article 14 and principles of natural justice and was unsustainable, therefore cancellation and consequential appellate order were quashed and matter was revived for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where complaint alleged wrongful availment of ITC M/s NIPL but did not arraign company as accused despite offences being attributed to company as registered person, prosecution of Director alone was not maintainable as company must first be arraigned for vicarious liability to arise, leading to quashing of complaint and all consequential proceedings
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Where retrospective amendment to Section 17(5)(d) was challenged by filing belated appeal, though Appellate Authority lacked power to condone delay beyond statutory limit, High Court set aside dismissal of appeal as time-barred and remanded matter for fresh decision on merits
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee challenged adjudication, appellate order and recovery proceedings on pure jurisdictional grounds such as competence and absence of cross-empowerment, and such questions involved no disputed facts but raised legal issues, writ petition was maintainable despite existence of an alternate remedy and matter was to be remanded to adjudicating authority for decision on jurisdictional issue first
Madras High Court
Where petitioner with registrations in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra received a combined section 73 order and sought waiver of interest or penalty via single SPL-02 under section 128A(1)(b) after tax payment, proper officer could not decline jurisdiction for Maharashtra alone as same officer issued combined order and no statutory basis exists to split jurisdiction, requiring reconsideration
Delhi High Court
Where SCN quantified penalties against petitioners under section 122(1A) before substituted proviso to section 107(6) mandated 10% pre-deposit for penalty- only appeals, right of appeal vested when SCN was issued and appeals arising from such SCN are governed by pre-amended provision, and so 10% pre-deposit requirement would not apply
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner, a Class-I civil contractor, executed government works awarded before GST replacing VAT and paid differential GST arising from transition, petitioner acquired legal right to reimbursement of such differential tax, with State as recipient of works contract service being bound by earlier rulings to reimburse only differential attributable to GST introduction subject to due verification
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit for January to March 2019 and filed returns on 31.10.2019, denial of credit due to limitation under Section 16(4) was incorrect since entitlement arose under Section 16(5), returns being filed within permissible cut-off date of 31.11.2021, thus orders declining credit were quashed and authority directed to reconsider eligibility under Section 16(5) alone
Kerala High Court
Where assessment and tax demand for zero rated supply were finalized solely based on Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, which had been declared ultra vires Section 16 of IGST Act, such assessment and summary lacked legal foundation and could not be sustained, requiring quashing of impugned orders
Telangana High Court
Where petitioners sought interest on delayed refund after principal refund was already sanctioned, insistence by authorities on fresh certification and compliance under Rule 89(2)(m) was not warranted, and Proper Officer was required to compute and sanction interest on basis of refund orders without demanding further documentation
Madras High Court
Where petitioner challenged cancellation of GST registration and both sides agreed issue was covered by Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. Appellate Deputy (Madras), cancellation was set aside and registration directed to be restored subject to petitioner filing all pending pre-cancellation returns and making related payments in cash, with ITC adjustment not permitted unless approved by department and restoration effective upon compliance
Karnataka High Court
Where Class-I contractor executed pre-GST works contract for State and, due to GST implementation, incurred additional GST liability which was paid to authorities, contractor was legally entitled to reimbursement of GST-induced differential from State, as State benefitted from contract and consistent decisions require recipient to bear increased tax incidence subject to verification of claim
Gauhati High Court
Where order imposing tax, interest and penalty for FY 2018-19 under Assam GST Act was passed on 30.04.2024 without any State notification extending limitation under Section 168A for said year, statutory period for passing order had expired on 31.12.2023, thus order was time-barred and unsustainable in law and was set aside. GST: Where tax, interest and penalty were imposed under an order that failed to follow Section 75(6) format and was passed without providing assessee opportunity of hearing as prescribed by Section 75(4), breach of statutory procedure vitiated adjudication and such impugned order could not be sustained in law and was set aside