Gujarat 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.
54 rulings found
Gujarat High Court
Where tax authority cancelled registration of assessee-firm retrospectively citing fraud or suppression but failed to consider request for more time to submit key documents, and passed order without deciding on such request or examining supporting evidence, such cancellation violated principles of natural justice and was set aside. GST: Where petitioners' registration cancellation was followed by revocation proceedings requiring immediate payment via DRC-03 and rejection relied on purchases from dealers whose registration was cancelled suo motu without prior notice to petitioners, imposition of payment and reliance on uncommunicated grounds amounted to jurisdictional overreach, rendering rejection order unsustainable and liable to be quashed. GST: Where registration was cancelled and revocation was rejected, but appellate authority introduced new grounds beyond original show cause notice, and opportunity to submit documents was denied at cancellation stage, such orders were quashed as non-application of mind and prejudicial amalgamation of issues warranted setting aside of cancellation and appeal with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings with due process
Uttarakhand High Court
Where adjudication order determining tax, interest and penalty was passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing, even though petitioner had not opted for personal hearing, once adverse decision was contemplated, obligation to provide personal hearing persisted, thus, impugned order was to be quashed and matter was to be reassessed after granting such opportunity
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner received a single composite assessment order under section 74 covering multiple tax periods, such composite adjudication was impermissible as each tax period requires distinct notice and adjudication, making impugned consolidated assessment unsustainable, thus same was to be set aside with liberty to issue separate notices for each period
Gauhati High Court
Where GST registration of transport service provider was cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns and period for seeking revocation had expired, cancellation order was to be set aside and registration was to be restored subject to filing all pending returns within 30 days and petitioner remained liable for tax, interest, penalty and late fees
Gauhati High Court
Where registration of petitioner engaged in works contract services was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months during 2023-25 amid acute financial hardship, cancellation was set aside restoring registration, subject to filing all pending returns within 30 days, with liability for applicable tax, penalty, interest and late fees maintained from date of order
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner's registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns and appeal for restoration was dismissed as time barred, writ relief was allowed by setting aside cancellation on condition that all pending returns be filed within 30 days with requisite payments, and limitation for demand under Sections 73(10)/74(10) to run from date of present order except for period governed by Section 44
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged reversal of input tax credit for delayed return filing and subsequently filed rectification application after retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) and 16(6) from 1 July 2017, with return filed within extended period and no revenue dispute on timing, rejection of appeal ignoring retrospective extension and rectification was perverse and orders were set aside
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where petitioners challenged show cause notices alleging ITC availment through fake invoices, as these notices merely reproduced statutory phrases of fraud or suppression without disclosing foundational facts or sufficient reasoning, action was unsustainable and notices were to be quashed with liberty to respondent to issue fresh notices in accordance with law
Allahabad High Court
Where show cause notice regarding tax or ITC involving fraud was uploaded only on GST portal after cancellation of assessee's registration and no alternative service was effected, assessee was not obligated to check portal post-cancellation, thus, such service was improper, violating principles of natural justice, and impugned assessment order was to be quashed
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and failure to respond to notice, restoration of registration was to be allowed as subject to petitioners filing all pending returns within 30 days and remained liable for arrears comprising tax, interest, penalty and late fee
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
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
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
Calcutta High Court
Where a notice and subsequent recovery order were issued in name of deceased sole-proprietor for fraud-related tax demands after death, such proceedings were void ab initio since SCN must be directed to legal representatives under legal-heir liability scheme, making determination against a non-existent person impermissible and vitiating demand and recovery actions based on such notice
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered dealer trading in computers and related goods was issued a single show cause notice and composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods, such composite proceedings were unsustainable since law prohibits issuance of a single notice or order for more than one tax period, resulting in setting aside of impugned composite order
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
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
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
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