Calcutta 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
Calcutta High Court
Where an ex parte order under Section 74 was uploaded under a wrong portal tab and thus, escaped assessee’s notice,impugned order was to be set aside and opportunity to contest SCN was granted subject to deposit of Rs. 1 lakh towards disputed tax
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
Kerala High Court
Where demand under section 74 and confiscation proceedings under section 130 were founded on witness statements and request for cross examination was rejected on irrelevant grounds, denial of effective opportunity vitiated adjudication and matter was liable to be remanded for fresh proceedings
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where a composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods was passed against a partnership firm providing works contract services to Government departments without issuing period-wise separate orders, such composite order was invalid and set aside, with liberty granted to initiate fresh proceedings through separate notices for each period in accordance with law
Allahabad High Court
Where assessee's registration was cancelled and business discontinued, service of show cause notice solely by uploading on GST portal was invalid since there was no obligation to check portal post-cancellation; thus, such service breached principles of natural justice and demand order was to be quashed
Madras High Court
Where SCN identified excess ITC claim due to mismatch in returns and did not allege fraud or suppression, proceeding should be under section 73, not section 74, as section 74's ingredients were absent, making assessment order unsustainable and requiring remand for a fresh decision under proper section with liberty for statutory reliefs
Madras High Court
Where registered person inadvertently paid tax under IGST instead of splitting payment into CGST and SGST, and entire tax liability stood discharged within prescribed period, IGST paid was to be appropriated towards correct heads without requirement of fresh payment and re-refund, as statutory refund scheme applies only to inter-State to intra-State reclassification and not mere wrong-head allocation
Madras High Court
Where for FY 2024-25 assessee was issued SCN invoking Section 74 after its omission and introduction of Section 74-A, direction for fresh notice under Section 74-A and due procedure was correct, but initial notice was not without jurisdiction as authority existed, only wrong provision was cited, thus proceedings to continue under correct provision with clarification
Allahabad High Court
Where penalty order imposed amount exceeding what was proposed in show- cause notice, since statute bars confirming liability beyond SCN, such excess imposition suffered from jurisdictional error
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee was subjected to assessment for multiple tax periods and a common assessment order was passed clubbing separate periods under both CGST and APGST, such composite order was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside, requiring fresh proceedings period-wise in accordance with law
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner challenged demand order alleging non- communication and denial of hearing after winding up of business, but physical hearing opportunity had been granted and GSTIN continued to remain valid, failure to reply or appear amounted to negligence, and plea of breach of natural justice was untenable as no violation thereof was made out
Kerala High Court
Where a dealer received a composite notice and order-in-original for multiple years under CGST/KGST, such composite proceedings were unsustainable as per settled law, so the impugned order, notice, and summary were quashed and authorities allowed to issue fresh year-wise notices, with benefit of Section 16(5) if returns filed by 30.11.2021 and limitation period suitably adjusted. GST: Where petitioner was denied ITC for certain months on limitation grounds though returns were furnished by 30.11.2021 and Section 16(5) benefit was claimed, order and related notices were quashed and respondents were to reconsider eligibility for ITC for each year, granting Section 16(5) benefit if timely filing is verified, excluding specified period for limitation computation
Madras High Court
Where registered purchaser claimed ITC on supplies from identified supplier and produced bank statements, invoices, e-way bills, ledgers and GSTR-2A/2B in response to SCN issued under Section 73, reversal of ITC solely due to supplier's registration cancellation without considering produced documents or affording opportunity for additional evidence could not be sustained and order was set aside for fresh adjudication
Kerala High Court
Composite GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years was unsustainable and related demand orders being unsustainable was required to be quashed; department permitted to issue separate fresh year-wise notices
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
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner bank received a composite show-cause notice and adjudication order clubbing multiple financial years for alleged IGST liability involving fraud, since each financial year is a separate unit for limitation and notices cannot combine multiple years to overcome bar of limitation, such composite notice and order were held illegal and without jurisdiction and were quashed
Tripura High Court
Where department issued Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice and Order-in- Original for 2017-18 after expiry of five-year period from due date of furnishing annual return and without any notification extending limitation under Section 74 or Section 168A, such proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to law. GST: Where SGST authorities had already issued and dropped proceedings with respect to excess ITC availed for certain years and identical subject matter was included in respondent’s SCN and OIO, statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) against parallel proceedings applied, making such notices and orders without jurisdiction to that extent. GST: Bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies only where CGST and SGST proceedings involve identical subject matter; where SGST proceedings concerned GSTR- 1B/GSTR-3B mismatch and CGST proceedings related to short payment of tax, parallel CGST action was valid
Patna High Court
Where assessee registered in multiple states leased parking spaces and paid license fee under reverse charge, and proper officer at Chandigarh passed order raising demand, writ challenging such order lies only before forum with appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over Chandigarh authority, thus, Patna High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ and remedy was to be sought before appropriate forum
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner-airline neither received services nor paid consideration, question whether petitioner-airline was “recipient” of CRS services and liable to IGST required determination; as issue involved jurisdiction of adjudicating authority and warranted deeper examination, writ petition was maintainable despite availability of statutory appeal
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