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
Madras High Court
Where employee was penalized for stock shortage in course of employment and GST was levied on penalty, such penalty did not constitute supply under paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II as it arose from employer-employee relationship, not supplier-recipient relationship, hence GST on such penalty is not attracted
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where petitioner and respondent No.2 quoted identical rates for meal supply tender and petitioner's bid was rejected amid GST ambiguity, subsequent post-bid offer and allegations of delay or unpaid dues did not establish illegality, arbitrariness, or breach of tender terms, as judicial review under Article 226 is limited to ensuring fairness and process, not to revisiting merits or contract disputes
Gujarat High Court
Rule 28(2) prescribing 1% valuation for corporate guarantees was upheld, but the words “whichever is higher” were held arbitrary and unconstitutional; valuation must instead be based on actual consideration or the deemed 1% value, as applicable. GST: GST at deemed 1% valuation under Rule 28(2) could not be levied on corporate guarantees for periods before its insertion on 26-10-2023; such retrospective levy was harsh and unfair, though levy was permissible for periods thereafter, while guarantees to foreign subsidiaries were governed by Circular No. 225/19/2024-GST. GST: Corporate guarantees furnished by holding companies to banks for subsidiaries, even without consideration, constituted taxable supplies between related persons under Section 7(1)(a) read with Schedule I; subsidiaries were recipients, and GST levy on such guarantees was upheld. GST: Execution of corporate guarantees by holding companies for subsidiaries, though without consideration, constituted “business” under Section 2(17) and Schedule I, as activities incidental or ancillary to trade include safeguarding subsidiaries’ financial interests; volume, continuity or profit motive was immaterial. GST: Corporate guarantees were not “actionable claims” excluded by Schedule III, as a guarantor’s liability is contingent and secondary, unlike a direct right to debt; hence, corporate guarantees remained taxable supplies under the GST provisions. GST: Execution of a corporate guarantee secured by a share pledge constituted a taxable supply, as the pledge merely secured performance of the guarantee…
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered dealer failed to file GSTR-3B for March 2025 and assessment was completed under Section 62, but subsequently filed the return with late fee and interest, assessment order was deemed withdrawn as per Section 62(2) and consequential proceedings were revoked, though liability for interest and late fee remained
Madras High Court
Where petitioner operating duty-free airport outlets paid service tax on licence fees and conservancy charges under pre-GST regime and filed refund claims based on CESTAT ruling but were rejected as time-barred, following a binding Division Bench precedent in Union of India v. Flemingo Duty Free Shop (P.) Ltd., [2025] 174 processed with applicable interest
Rajasthan High Court
Where assessee remained unaware of GST demand order due to it being uploaded only on portal under Additional Notices and Orders and not served manually, and e-filing of appeal stood blocked as time-barred, delay in filing appeal was condoned considering circumstances were beyond assessee's control and Appellate Authority was required to adjudicate appeal on merits
Karnataka High Court
Where property acquired by compulsory acquisition for highway widening included land with attached structure and compensation was awarded, deduction of GST from compensation was unwarranted since such expropriation did not constitute a supply of goods or services under GST scheme and no statutory basis existed for GST levy, thus GST deduction was ultra vires and liable for refund
Allahabad High Court
Where Adjudicating Authority, after passing ex parte order without considering assessee's replies, issued a rectification order without notice and sustained demand, such rectification was impermissible since it was not for an error apparent but involved merit review, denial of hearing vitiated proceedings, thus only permissible course was recall of earlier order and fresh decision after hearing
Rajasthan High Court
Where demand was confirmed against assessee and order was uploaded on portal under additional notices and orders tab, and assessee approached instant court with delay of 124 days, having satisfied that delay was due to reasons beyond control of assessee, appellate authority was to be directed to entertain appeal if same was filed within 30 days
Calcutta High Court
Where SCN was uploaded only under Additional Notice and Orders on GST portal without separate intimation and assessee consequently could not respond within prescribed time, dismissal of appeal under section 107 solely on limitation without examining merits was held unsustainable and appellate order was quashed with direction to admit appeal and decide matter on merits after hearing
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where a registered firm challenged a single composite assessment order covering multiple periods without separate orders for each period, such composite order was set aside on this ground alone, allowing respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for each period separately if so advised
Rajasthan High Court
Where order was uploaded only on GST portal without any manual service or personal hearing, and assessee became aware of recovery only after bank placed lien, limitation did not begin from portal upload without acknowledgement, so delay in filing appeal was condonable as reasons were beyond assessee's control, and Appellate Authority was to hear appeal on merits
Gujarat High Court
Where refund was rejected, rectification sought within statutory period was disposed by a reasoned order, and appeal was filed against both rejection and rectification, limitation for appeal must be computed from rectification order and not from earlier rejection, thus, appellate authority erred in treating appeal as time- barred based on original order and matter was liable for decision on merits
Gujarat High Court
Where GST demand proceedings were initiated and concluded in name of deceased sole proprietor after cancellation of registration post demise, with SCNs and orders issued on GSTN portal and premises without knowledge of legal heir housewife, all such notices and orders stood invalid and quashed, with liberty reserved to initiate proceedings against legal heir as per law
Patna High Court
Where a works contractor's claim for refund of excess cash ledger balance was rejected citing ineligible input tax credit and prior-year dues, but no proceedings under Section 54(11) were initiated, withholding of refund was unwarranted and Commissioner was required to issue a notice, provide hearing and pass a reasoned order under Section 54(11) during pendency of appellate proceedings
Delhi High Court
Where directors and managing directors were subjected to penalty under section 122(1) for alleged fraudulent availment and utilization of ITC by their companies, and applicability of section 122(1) to a person who was not a taxable person was pending consideration before Supreme Court, writ petition was not to be entertained as statutory appeal under section 107 was available, thus, petitioners were relegated to appellate remedy
Delhi High Court
Where an Advocate registered as Insolvency Professional rendered insolvency and receivership services pursuant to NCLT appointment, such services were not classified as legal services and hence not covered under reverse charge, making professional liable under forward charge to obtain GST registration and issue GST- compliant invoices, while legal services rendered as Advocate would continue under reverse charge
Delhi High Court
Where assessee challenged validity of SCN and order solely served by uploading on GST portal without proof of actual intimation or receipt and no reply was filed, portal-only service absent acknowledgement was not considered sufficient, thus order was to be set aside with opportunity to file reply to SCN
Calcutta High Court
Where a single composite show cause notice under section 74 read with section 122 covered multiple financial years and was followed by year-wise DRC-01 summaries and demand order, issuance of such composite notice was beyond jurisdiction under CGST Act, making entire proceedings including demand order and DRC-01 summaries void and same were to be quashed
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where construction company’s electronic credit ledger was blocked under Rule 86A by Additional Commissioner without recorded reasons or prior hearing, such action, though Rule 86A does not specify hearing, violated principles of natural justice due to serious civil consequences, and order was set aside as arbitrary and passed in breach of audi alteram partem