Madras 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.
93 rulings found
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
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 penalty equals to 100 percent of tax was imposed under Section 74 for alleged fraud though penalty only of 50 percent of tax under Section 74A was statutorily leviable, as provisions invoked had led to a higher penalty and materially altered liability, such error was not curable as a mere misquotation; impugned penalty order was to be quashed and fresh proceedings was to be initiated under correct provision
Gauhati High Court
Where purchaser trading in scrap batteries bought goods from registered suppliers, paid GST through banking channels, filed GST returns, and availed input tax credit, denial of ITC solely on ground of supplier's default in depositing tax was unjustified in absence of collusion or lack of bona fides, and remedy lay against defaulting supplier, thus impugned orders were set aside
Gauhati High Court
Where scrap battery trader purchased goods from registered suppliers, paid price plus GST via bank and claimed ITC with proper invoices and returns, ITC could not be denied solely due to supplier's non-payment of GST in absence of wrongdoing or collusion by purchaser, remedy for non-payment by supplier lay against supplier, not purchasing dealer
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
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