Rajasthan 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.
136 rulings found
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 SCN proposed penalty of Rs. 20,000 but adjudication order confirmed penalty of Rs. 96,000, confirmation of penalty beyond proposed amount was in gross violation of section 75(7), rendering order without jurisdiction, requiring setting aside of such order and remand for fresh decision after affording due hearing
Allahabad High Court
Where SCN invoking extended period for tax or ITC involving fraud was issued without detailing statutory ingredients like fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax, continuation of proceedings was unsustainable as jurisdictional preconditions were not disclosed, leading to quashing of SCN with liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law
Allahabad High Court
Where petitioner's registration had been cancelled and no business was carried on thereafter, uploading show cause notice solely on GST portal post-cancellation did not constitute valid service, breaching principles of natural justice, as petitioner was under no obligation to check portal and alternative service modes were required, resulting in demand order being quashed
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner challenged show cause notice continuing a previously set aside notice under Section 104, issue had already been adjudicated by Division Bench in Gyankeer Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CE and (Raj), and with identical circumstances there was no ground to depart from that precedent, allowing writ petition and quashing impugned show cause notice
Patna High Court
Where Proper Officer issued order determining tax liability and attached bank account for FY 2022-23 before due date for annual return had expired, such premature adjudication was without authority and impugned order was set aside, requiring fresh proceedings to be initiated only after due date for filing annual return had passed
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where tax determination proceedings for several periods were concluded by a single composite assessment order, such composite order was impermissible under GST law and accordingly set aside, with authorities permitted to issue separate period-wise orders after providing due opportunity and all consequential proceedings revoked
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered firm was assessed for multiple financial years under a single composite order in proceedings alleging fraud under Section 74, such order was invalid as each tax period requires separate adjudication, so composite order was unsustainable and impugned order was set aside with liberty to issue separate orders for each period in accordance with law
Delhi High Court
Where CGST authorities initiated proceedings and issued show cause notice before SGST authorities on same subject matter for overlapping periods, statutory bar on parallel proceedings under section 6(2)(b) was not attracted, and jurisdictional objection could not be a ground to bypass statutory appeal remedy, making writ interference unwarranted. GST: Where goods were seized without invoices during search and initial proceedings under section 67(7) were concluded with order dropping proceedings, a subsequent show cause notice under section 74, culminating in an order after investigation and reply, constituted a distinct proceeding, not a parallel adjudication of same subject matter, thus both orders were legally sustainable. GST: Where petitioner challenged proceedings under writ jurisdiction despite availability of undisputed statutory appeal under section 107, and no jurisdictional infirmity or violation of natural justice was found on objections raised under section 6(2)(b), writ remedy was declined as no ground existed to override efficacious appellate remedy, relegating petitioner to appeal process
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner challenged a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under section 74 on grounds that prior dropping of GST registration cancellation barred subsequent adjudication for tax or ITC involving fraud, since cancellation proceedings and section 74 adjudication operate in distinct spheres, such challenge was misconceived and writ was not maintainable, leaving petitioner with opportunity to file a reply before adjudication
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
Kerala High Court
Where a petitioner claimed denial of opportunity to be heard in assessment proceedings due to internal disputes, health issues and entrustment of portal credentials to counsel, but hearing notices were repeatedly uploaded on GST portal and not acted upon, valid service of notice stood established and responsibility to monitor portal rested with petitioner, so writ petition challenging orders was not maintainable
Gauhati High Court
Where DGGI officer issued a consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice covering multiple financial years under CGST regime and petitioners challenged permissibility of such consolidation after not filing a reply, since law as per Tata Projects Ltd. permits consolidated notices and adjudication for multiple periods, writ challenge to such consolidated notice was not maintainable. GST: Where petitioners received consolidated show cause notice for tax or ITC not involving fraud and failed to reply before seeking writ remedy nearly a year later, since initiation under general or fraud-based provisions is fact-specific and determination of fraud requires factual examination, writ jurisdiction was not maintainable at notice stage and parties must pursue statutory adjudication and appeals
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
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
Allahabad High Court
Where registered person's registration was cancelled and show cause notice for demand was served solely by uploading on GST portal, such service was inadequate as petitioner was no longer obligated to check portal, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice and quashing of demand order, with liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law
Kerala High Court
Where respondents issued a single composite show cause notice and summary covering multiple financial years, such composite notice was impermissible warranting quashing of consolidated notice and summary, with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year and exclusion of limitation period for reinitiation from issuance of composite notice till receipt of judgment copy
Gujarat High Court
Where ITC recovery was ordered against petitioners based on allegations of non-genuine inward supplies without addressing their detailed replies and documents and without granting an opportunity for personal hearing, passing a cryptic two-line order without reasons violated natural justice requirements, rendering the order unsustainable and necessitating its quashing for decision after proper hearing. GST: Where proceedings for recovery of ITC with interest were initiated without intimating date, time or venue for personal hearing even after reminders, and a cryptic order lacking reasons was passed, failure to provide statutory personal hearing before adverse decision amounted to breach of natural justice, thus vitiating adjudication and rendering impugned order liable to be quashed
Gujarat High Court
Where department issued show cause notice and demand order for alleged fraud against a deceased taxpayer after GSTIN cancellation with nil demand, and petitioner, a housewife unrelated to business, presented death certificate, both SCN and demand order were quashed as issued against deceased, with liberty to proceed per law against petitioner if necessary