Allahabad High Court
For revenue
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.
10 rulings found
Allahabad High Court
Where assessee paid entire tax voluntarily after notice alleging evasion and without demur, acceptance of liability confirmed all terms and allegations in notice, thus assessee remained liable to equal penalty and interest as per Section 74, subsequent show cause notices only computed sums, and voluntary deposit did not absolve penalty or interest, so writ petition challenging demand was not tenable
Telangana High Court
Where tax liability declared in GSTR-1 for December 2018 was discharged only upon filing GSTR-3B in October 2019 though corresponding amount had already been deposited in Electronic Cash Ledger, mere deposit was held not to constitute payment as appropriation occurred only upon debit towards identified liability, consequently intervening period was liable to interest and plea of portal glitches being unsubstantiated did not alter statutory consequence
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where registered person deposited self-assessed tax belatedly and interest was demanded by authority without initiation of section 73 proceedings, waiver of interest under section 128A was not available since circular permitted waiver only where section 73 was invoked, and self-assessed tax interest liability under section 50 read with section 75(12) was directly recoverable with no scope for waiver in such cases. GST: Where petitioner sought waiver of interest for delayed deposit of self-assessed tax citing discrimination under Article 14, since benefit under waiver scheme applied only to disputed tax arising from section 73 proceedings and not to self-assessed tax, classification between disputed and self-assessed tax was valid, denial of waiver to petitioner was justified and Article 14 challenge was not sustainable
Madras High Court
Where petitioner delayed GST tax remittance for period 2020-2021 and challenged only penalty imposed at 10 percent of tax demand citing COVID-19 delays, but failed to pay tax and interest within thirty days as mandated for waiver, imposition of penalty at statutory rate was upheld and no ground existed for interference with penalty order
Madras High Court
Where petitioner discharged entire admitted tax before notified date but missed prescribed time limit for amnesty scheme application seeking waiver of interest and penalty, such time limit is mandatory and not directory, yet, in interest of justice, due to full tax payment and revenue protection, ex parte order was set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration after granting reasonable opportunity
Madras High Court
Where assessee was found to have availed and utilized ineligible ITC due to discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, interest under specific provision at 24 percent was rightly imposed from date of utilization till reversal, as utilization through credit ledger attracted liability regardless of cash payment argument, rendering general interest provisions inapplicable and justifying impugned order
Karnataka High Court
Where writ petitioner, a works contractor, sought directions to file returns or amended returns with relaxed penalty, interest or limitation based on reimbursement clause in contract, such contractual entitlement could not override mandatory GST statutory scheme, and no directions could be issued to relax statutory interest, penalty or limitation for filing returns or revised returns, thus impugned relief granted to petitioner by Single Judge was unsustainable GST: Where works contractor received contract pre-GST but invoices post- 01.07.2017 included GST at 12 percent and post-audit demand was raised at 18 percent, direction for reimbursement of GST liability including interest and penalty was enforceable only against employer and not against tax authorities or State, thus, impugned order was to be set aside to that extent
Karnataka High Court
Where sub-contractor filed GST returns belatedly and GST authorities initiated garnishee action for recovery of interest on delayed payment, Single Judge's direction permitting filing or amendments of returns post 01.07.2017 without insisting on interest, penalty or limitation and restraining recovery was unsustainable since liability to interest arises by statutory mandate and cannot be waived or reduced in absence of specific provision GST: Where a sub-contractor executed works under contracts entered before GST rollout, reimbursement of incremental GST liability due to regime change arose solely between contracting parties and could not bind tax authorities, and statutory provisions for levy and collection of GST could not be altered by contractual terms, making any reimbursement direction enforceable only against employer and not against tax authorities
Karnataka High Court
Where contractors executing government works based on pre-GST tenders with tax-inclusive rates faced increased GST liability post- 01.07.2017, statutory liability to pay GST remained unaffected by reimbursement disputes with Employers, and no judicial direction could permit filing revised or amended returns, or waive penalty, interest or limitation, contrary to statutory provisions, thus directions easing such compliance were to be set aside GST: Where government contractors with pre-GST tax-inclusive contracts incurred additional GST liability on works/payments executed after 01.07.2017, direction to reimburse differential tax applied only to concerned Employers and not tax authorities, restricting liability and benefit of revised GST-inclusive recalculation solely to parties to contract and not extending to Revenue authorities
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