Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
119 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where demand arising from mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B was challenged as time barred on ground that proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 73 within stipulated time, benefit of exclusion of limitation during Covid-19 period applied and proceedings could not be held barred by limitation
Madras High Court
Where petitioner challenged demand orders confirming tax, interest and penalty after issuing SCNs citing discrepancies between GSTR-9 and Form 26AS and GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B and alleging willful suppression under Section 74 while petitioner's replies failed to effectively rebut those allegations, invocation of Section 74 for levying penalty based on prima facie material from inspection records was valid and could not be assailed. GST: Where revenue quantified tax demand by erroneously treating exempted turnover as taxable and adopting figures from wrong period, quantification of demand was vitiated, necessitating reconsideration on merits after giving due opportunity to petitioner; thus, matter was to be remitted for fresh adjudication
Madras High Court
Where petitioner failed to respond to requests for information and show cause notices regarding possible non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful ITC, non-response amounted to suppression to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation and initiation of proceedings under Section 74; hence ex parte orders were warranted in absence of substantive reply, but matter remitted for de novo adjudication. GST: Where DRC-01A intimations and notices were issued for tax periods 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 after scrutiny and no replies were filed, ex parte orders confirming proposals were within limitation under Sections 73 and 74, and Appellate Authority could convert to Section 73 proceedings if Section 74 was wrongly invoked, provided proper reply to DRC-01 was available
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioners received consolidated SCNs as also consolidated orders covering multiple years under sections 73/74, such composite notices and orders were valid as statutes do not mandate FY-wise segregation and there was no statutory bar and limitation principles would apply period-wise; and jurisdiction was not defeated absent Article 14 or limitation breach
Madras High Court
Where assessee availed and utilized excess ITC over GSTR-2A figures and failed to pay reverse charge tax on foreign agency commissions, such acts constituted wrongful availment and suppression with intent to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation under Section 74 GST: Orders passed in November 2024 under Section 73 for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 were within limitation, as statutory extensions governed computation of time, and limitation issue stood concluded by binding precedent
Madras High Court
Where audit culminated in show cause notices and single orders-in-original covering multiple assessment years for determination of demands, objection to bunching multiple tax periods in a single proceeding was unsustainable in view of order passed in Chimney Hills Education Society v. Additional Commissioner of
Gauhati High Court
Where partners of construction firm were found to benefit from GST evasion involving undisclosed cash without invoices on transfer of development rights, and retained the benefit with transactions at their instance, penalty under Section 122(1A) was properly imposed on them as persons responsible, since the provision targets natural persons behind violations irrespective of entity structure. GST: Where SCN invoking Section 122(1A) was issued after its enforcement, targeting partners responsible for benefits retained from violations originally punishable under Section 122(1) during prior periods, Section 122(1A) merely identified liable persons without creating new violations, its application was valid for past transactions so long as SCN was issued after Section 122(1A) came into force
Madras High Court
Where petitioner initially discharged GST at a lower rate and later paid differential tax after departmental intimation regarding higher tax rate, liability to pay interest for belated tax payment arose under determination and recovery framework, and obligation to pay interest subsisted irrespective of subsequent payment or willingness to pay in instalments, rendering recovery of such interest under determination and recovery provisions fully justified. GST: Where petitioner initially discharged GST at a lower rate and later paid differential tax after departmental intimation regarding higher tax rate, interest on delayed payment remained payable under determination provisions and reference to extended period in DRC-01 and DRC-07 would not invalidate proceedings; matter required reconsideration of petitioner’s reply in light of business nature for a fresh order
Madras High Court
Where assessees challenged demands raised invoking extended-period on ground that there was lack of foundational facts in show cause notices, in view of fact that prior communications like scrutiny, audit or inspection had already conveyed requisite reasons and facts, invocation of extended-period was valid; absence of reasons in show cause notice alone was not fatal if jurisdictional facts were discernible from earlier communications or on record, subject to prima facie satisfaction under section 74. GST: Where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression is not established, proceedings initiated under Section 74 need not fail but may be converted into Section 73 proceedings; such conversion preserves valid tax demands while excluding consequences dependent on extended-period ingredients. GST: Where central authorities issued consolidated show cause notices spanning multiple years and parties disputed permissibility of such composite notices, consolidated SCNs covering multiple periods were deemed valid, as normal and extended-period demands were not tax-period specific and statute did not prohibit common SCNs for multiple periods GST: Where assessee, on being inspected for multiple years and issued DRC-01A and DRC-01 alleging fraud, non-cooperation, documentation lapses and failures to provide financials, challenged show cause notices as pre-determined, since GST scheme allows communication of reasons throughout proceedings and detailed SCN was intended to enable assessee for rebuttal, writ challenge was not maintainable and merits had to be adjudicated in their own course.…
Madras High Court
Where assessee operated two registrations and department inspection revealed circular transactions and fictitious ITC on non-supplies, such findings prima facie justified invoking extended limitation period under GST for both registrations and challenge to such invocation was untenable as all procedural requirements for Erode registration were duly followed as threshold for invoking extended period under GST regime is lower than previous indirect tax laws GST: Where post-remand DRC-07 orders for Gobichettipalayam were passed without prior DRC-01 show cause notice, such orders were to be set aside for fresh adjudication with opportunity and natural justice, while Erode proceedings that followed proper sequence with DRC-01A and DRC-01 reply suffered no procedural infirmity and were not to be interfered
Madras High Court
ITC on works contracts and construction of immovable property used for renting is blocked under Section 17(5)(d); rented building being not “plant or machinery,” ITC claimed on such construction was rightly denied GST: Prior intimation to department, without statutory approval, does not preclude invocation of extended limitation; where blocked ITC was availed beyond prescribed time and without concurrence, extended period and equal penalty for suppression were rightly invoked despite subsequent reversal of credit. GST : Joint assessment proceedings for multiple tax periods justified; common show cause notice issued for multiple tax periods cannot be challenged
Madras High Court
Where SCNs alleging tax or ITC fraud for periods 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 were issued in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 74 prior to expiry of statutory limitation and after issuance of DRC-01A intimation, challenge on limitation was untenable as statutory timelines were complied with, and SCNs therefore survived. GST: Where petitioner failed to reply to DRC-01A in respect of 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020 leading to non-cooperation and suppression under Explanation-2, invocation of Section 74 machinery was justified and, with disputed facts involved, remedy lay in adjudication by replying to SCNs rather than writ, so writ petitions seeking quash were not maintainable
Madras High Court
Where petitioner company was merged and after NCLT's approval, unutilized ITC and liabilities were transferred and department parallelly initiated audit-based and scrutiny-based proceedings for same period, audit and scrutiny notices could be issued separately as each arose from distinct processes; suppression of facts being disclosed as was required for invoking section 74, limitation period would be extended and, thus, SCNs could not be challenged filing writ petitions
Madras High Court
Where registered manufacturer failed to maintain job-work records or file prescribed Form ITC-04 due to alleged technical issues, and could not prove receipt of goods within timelines, movement was deemed as supply and tax, interest and equal penalty were correctly confirmed, with extended period invocation upheld since exceptions were not attracted and threshold under GST for such invocation was lower GST: Where registered manufacturer sent goods to sister concern for job work but failed to maintain job-work records or file prescribed form, and department treated such transfers as deemed supplies with tax, interest, and penalty, remand for verification was warranted to examine revenue neutrality and onus was on petitioner to establish tax payment by principal or job worker, with adjudication on factual merits to follow
Madras High Court
Where manufacturer of TMT steel bars had credits blocked under Rule 86A due to evidence that four supplier premises were vacant with no infrastructure, no vehicle movements were recorded for alleged deliveries, and documentation anomalies indicated fake transactions, power to block ITC was validly exercised based on adequate material, and writ seeking unblocking was not justified
Madras High Court
Where registered persons challenged orders assessing liability for fraudulent ITC availed based on a key witness's statement but were denied cross-examination, right to cross-examination was not absolute since allegations pertained to bogus ITC and could be rebutted by documentary evidence, thus, mere denial of cross- examination did not vitiate adjudication, making statutory appeal appropriate remedy
Madras High Court
Where petitioner failed to furnish annual return in Form GSTR-9 by due date, statutory late fee under section 47 was attracted, as it applies to both belated filing and non-filing, making the imposition of late fee and penalty valid and argument that late fee is not leviable for non-filing, untenable. GST: Where taxpayer failed to furnish annual return in Form GSTR-9 and was levied both late fee and general penalty, since no separate penalty was prescribed for such non-filing, general penalty under section 125 was applicable in addition to late fee, so levy of both was justified and challenge by taxpayer was rejected
Meghalaya High Court
Where BOT (Annuity) road construction concessionaire challenged SCN and OIO alleging that GST demand on annuity post launch commercial operation of project and sought writ on grounds including jurisdiction and constitutional invalidity, since core disputes related to classification, exemption and composite supply, determination of which required determination of mixed question of facts and law and no grave jurisdictional or natural justice breaches were shown, writ petition was not maintainable and statutory appeal would be an efficacious alternate remedy. GST: Where petitioner, executing BOT (Annuity) Jorabat–Shillong NH-40 project, challenged DGGI and CGST officers’ jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate demand for GST on annuity, both Additional Director-DGGI and Additional Commissioner of CGST-Shillong were Proper Officers appointed and empowered under relevant notifications and statute to act under Sections 73 and 74; so jurisdictional challenge to their actions would fail
Kerala High Court
Where contractor, a registered taxpayer, executed works for government department and contract stipulated government would bear GST liability, statutory obligation to pay tax under CGST/KSGST remained with contractor, so writ petition challenging adjudication was not maintainable and contractual remedies could be pursued separately without affecting tax liability