Himachal Pradesh 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.
82 rulings found
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner challenged order-in-original and GST DRC-07 summary by writ petition despite statutory remedy of appeal under section 107, petitioner was required to pursue appellate remedy and period spent in writ was to be excluded from limitation, allowing appeal to be filed within thirty days
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee’s reply to Section 74 SCN was not considered and mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) was not granted, same vitiated DRC-07 assessment; as hearing was required where adverse decision was contemplated, order and consequential proceedings were unsustainable and were to be quashed. GST: Violation of natural justice and failure to grant mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) rendered assessment under Section 74 legally unsustainable; consequently, endorsement rejecting statutory appeal as time-barred could not survive, and assessment with all consequential proceedings was to be set aside
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner's GST registration was cancelled and statutory appeal was filed with delay of 167 days due to bona fide, uncontrollable reasons including business closure and fraud-tag impacting livelihood, and Appellate Authority otherwise lacked jurisdiction to condone such delay, non-adjudication would cause grave prejudice so delay was condoned and appeal was directed to be entertained on merits
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered textile manufacturer received multiple Form GSTR-3A notices for non-filing of GSTR-3B and all notices were uploaded on common portal with no response filed, uploading constituted valid statutory service and plea for physical service was untenable, so cancellation of registration for non-filing could not be challenged on grounds of lack of natural justice. GST: Where GST-registered textile manufacturer, after registration cancellation and receipt of statutory notices, failed to pursue available remedies for revocation or file statutory appeal within limitation or satisfy pre-deposit requirements, invocation of writ jurisdiction was impermissible as statutory remedies were not exhausted and limitation bar or pre-deposit requirement could not justify bypassing these remedies, leading to dismissal of petition
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where due to proprietor's hospitalization, appeal was filed with 17 days delay beyond period 30 days prescribed under Act and authority rejected admission without examining sufficient cause or conducting an independent inquiry, delay was to be condoned considering that appeal is a valuable statutory right
Telangana High Court
As discrepancy between order-in-original and DRC-07 summary was rectified during writ proceedings, petitioner was relegated to statutory appeal; liberty was granted to file appeal with delay-condonation application and pre-deposit within two weeks, raising all factual and legal grounds, subject to appellate authority’s satisfaction on delay
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged denial of ITC and garnishee notices via writs citing belated GSTR filings, non- hearing, and retrospective ITC amendment, remedy lay in filing statutory appeals with pre-deposit and delay- condonation plea, appellate authority was to consider delay and decide on merits, all legal and factual grounds reserved for appellate adjudication
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged SCN and OIO on ground that a gap of six-months between SCN and OIO was not maintained and also there was violation of earlier liberty to file reply, maintaining a gap of six-month period was merely directory; since repeated opportunities for reply and hearing were given, and OIO was passed within limitation period, challenge on account of not maintaining time gap did not vitiate proceedings. GST: Where petitioner alleged denial of effective hearing as order was issued within five days of last hearing, since records showed multiple notices, repeated reminders, a videographed hearing, and supply of seized records, there was substantial compliance with statutory hearing requirements; no prejudice being caused from a shorter gap, making statutory appeal instead of filing writ was proper remedy. GST: Where petitioner challenged OIO and SCN by filing writ petition despite Supreme Court's order relegating to statutory appeal with pre-deposit, since no exceptional ground was established, adequate opportunity was given, OIO was within limitation, and time-limit plea was not raised earlier, writ petition was not entertainable; lliberty was to be given to pursue statutory appellate remedy
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee's appeal under section 107 against ex-parte order for excess ITC was rejected as time-barred and Tribunal was still non-functional, writ against appellate order was maintainable as filing was within statutory window prescribed under Section 112 and Ministry Notification; alternative remedy would not oust Article 226 jurisdiction. GST: Where assessee’s appeal under section 107 was dismissed as time-barred after prior rectification was pursued in good faith and within statutory limitation, principles of section 14 of Limitation Act applied to exclude period spent on rectification proceedings, making appeal filed within condonable one month; thus, appeal would not be time-barred. GST: Where assessee filed appeal within condonable period after OIO confirming excess ITC, absence of a separate condonation application should not have led to summary dismissal, as statutory scheme and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC contemplated affording at least one opportunity to explain delay; thus, non-adherence would render appellate order unsustainable and required restoration for fresh consideration after giving such opportunity
Karnataka High Court
Where ex parte GST orders were passed and assessee raised arguable issues on reverse charge liability and demand exceeding stated in show cause notice, in peculiar facts of case belated statutory appeals was to be allowed for adjudication on merits
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner partnership firm's statutory appeal against SCN adjudication was dismissed as time-barred on computed period of delay from date on which order was wrongly uploaded on portal, since precedents permitted interference despite absence of statutory power to condone further delay, dismissal of appeal in instant case was unsustainable; delay was to be condoned, and appeal was to be directed to be adjudicated on merits
Telangana High Court
Where taxpayer filed writ challenging order under section 73 claiming knowledge only upon order's upload in 'additional notices' of portal, and statutory appeal under section 107 was available, writ jurisdiction was not exercised, liberty granted for appeal with delay condonation and pre- deposit, and appellate authority directed to consider condonation and decide merits if satisfied
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner filed appeal against order-in-original with delay and omitted to disclose pending rectification application due to Chartered Accountant error, omission deprived petitioner of a material ground for delay condonation, thus order dismissing appeal as time-barred was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted to appellate authority for fresh consideration of condonation application and if satisfaction, decide appeal on merits
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Order-in-Original due to non-issuance of show cause notice which fact was discovered only after garnishee recovery proceedings were initiated, assessee should file statutory appeal
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order was not communicated to petitioner but only to its accountant who failed to relay information, leading to appeal delay until recovery action, dismissal of appeal as time-barred was unjustified since sufficient cause existed and mandatory pre-deposit was paid, warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal for substantive appellate remedy. GST: Where petitioner learned of recovery only after bank accounts were frozen and payment of mandatory pre-deposit was made before filing appeal, interference was warranted to secure justice as recovery during pendency of appeal after pre-deposit violated statutory scheme, thus delay in filing appeal deserved condonation though garnishee freeze was ordered to continue till disposal of appeal
Telangana High Court
Where assessee filed rectification application against original order within limitation, appeal was filed within three months of rectification rejection, and all statutory remedies were diligently pursued, dismissal of appeal as time- barred due to technical defects in memo was unjustified, and pragmatic approach called for remand for decision on merits
Telangana High Court
Where SEZ unit's refund claim under zero-rated supply provisions for IGST paid on group health insurance services was rejected and petitioner challenged same via writ, since questions on whether claim fell outside zero-rated supply or was simpliciter refund required consideration by appellate authority, writ was not to be entertained and petitioner was permitted to pursue statutory appeal
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged IGST demand on export supplies under Notification 41/2017-IGST (Rate) alleging violation of natural justice and non-consideration of documents, since appellate authority duly considered materials but found insufficient invoice-wise correlation, and no breach of natural justice, jurisdictional error, or mala fides was established, writ remedy could not be entertained and statutory appeal before GSTAT was proper course
Orissa High Court
Where appellate authority rejected appeal as time barred by incorrectly computing limitation period under section 107 despite appeal being filed within condonable period, such rejection was unsustainable and matter was liable to be remanded for consideration of delay condonation request
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