Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
537 rulings found
Karnataka High Court
Where respondent blocked petitioner's input tax credit under Rule 86A alleging use of fake invoices without prior notice or adherence to procedure, impugned blocking failed to conform to settled legal principles and thus same was to be quashed with direction to immediately unblock electronic credit ledger and permit fresh proceedings only in accordance with prescribed Rule 86A procedure
Madras High Court
Where petitioner availed input tax credit on invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A due to technical glitches acknowledged by authorities, since statutory conditions for credit were otherwise met, denial of credit was not justified; as entitlement is established under Circular 183/15/2022-GST, no interest or penalty was payable
Gauhati High Court
Where a partnership firm trading in uniforms and furniture faced cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns but subsequently filed all pending returns and was ready to comply with Rule 22(4), restoration of registration was permissible upon timely application and payment of tax arrears, interest, penalty, and late fees in line with prior judicial precedent
Allahabad High Court
Where a person was arrested for alleged GST offences in one State and was produced before a remand Magistrate in another State without securing a transit remand from a Magistrate at place of arrest, such production and detention were impermissible, rendering arrest and remand vitiated and detention illegal, warranting release of detenue on habeas corpus. GST: Where petitioner was arrested for alleged GST offences and arrest memo failed to disclose place of arrest and did not furnish written grounds of arrest as annexure despite departmental circular mandating such procedure, such non-compliance with mandatory arrest safeguards rendered remand order and consequent detention illegal
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
Telangana High Court
Where proper officer issued tax demand order for April 2019 to March 2020 after the expiry of extended limitation on 31.08.2024, delay in order upload was a jurisdictional defect not cured by administrative workload or minor revenue loss, and as limitation affected authority to tax, both order- in-original and order-in-appeal were unsustainable and set aside
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee's GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months, assessee was permitted to seek restoration on compliance with Rule 22(4) by filing pending returns and clearing tax, interest, penalty and late fee dues, with limitation under section 73(10) running from date of order except for FY 2024-25 as per section 44
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee's registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns and non-response to show-cause notice, assessee was entitled to seek restoration by applying within 60 days and furnishing all pending returns with payment of dues, upon which authority was required to consider restoration expeditiously as per applicable GST Rules and related provisions
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
Telangana High Court
Where registered taxpayer’s application for revocation of cancelled registration was rejected grounds without application of mind since it only recited that reasons for condonation were incorrect or insufficient without addressing explanation or documents, such rejection order was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted to competent authority for fresh speaking order after due consideration
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 notices and ex parte orders for ITC mismatch and delayed GSTR-9 were issued in name of deceased individual due to non-intimation of death by legal heir, orders were set aside and matter remitted for fresh decision on merits with pre-deposit, as ex parte adjudication was improper despite extended-period provision being validly invoked in present context. GST: Where demands were raised for 2017-2018 and 2019-2020 by issuing DRC-01A and DRC-01, and limitation periods stood extended due to statutory notifications and Supreme Court’s Covid-19 orders, adjudication under general demand provision remained maintainable even if extended- period proceedings were inapplicable, as law permitted passing of orders under general demand provision in such circumstances. GST: Where assessee died and no intimation of death was given, statutory liability for tax, interest or penalty determined against deceased for ITC mismatch and late fee continued upon legal heir, who was required to discharge such liabilities even if business was discontinued, as legal heir is responsible for dues of deceased under GST law
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 SEZ unit's supplies and services for authorised operations were treated as not zero-rated due to non-production of Letter of Undertaking and SEZ Certificate, but required documents were offered for verification during proceedings, adjudication orders were set aside and matter remanded to enable submission and verification of such documents as per Section 16 of IGST Act
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner with multiple state registrations received foreign IT services invoiced to one state but consideration and tax under reverse charge were discharged by another unit which issued self-invoice as prescribed, denial of input tax credit on grounds of invoice address was unsustainable since statutory conditions for ITC were satisfied and self-invoice constituted valid tax-paying document. GST: Where petitioner cross-charged service value and corresponding input tax credit from head office to other states without ISD registration for July 2017 to March 2019, since unamended law did not mandate ISD registration and distribution route was not compulsory as per statutory materials, such cross-charge was not illegal and penalty demand was unsustainable
Madras High Court
Where rejection of ITC was based on limitation period before insertion of section 16(5) which provided statutory relaxation on time limit for returns and rectification, subsequent change in law meant old basis of rejection no longer applied, so ITC denial based on pre-amendment position could not be sustained and impugned order was set aside
Madras High Court
Where petitioner disclosed outward supplies in GSTR-1 for certain periods but failed to discharge corresponding output tax through GSTR-3B on time, mere non-receipt of customer payments or lack of intent to evade tax could not alter statutory liability, but in light of section 128A and GST Council deliberations, such short payments warranted reconsideration under section 73 rather than section 74, hence matter required fresh decision accordingly