Punjab & Haryana 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
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where assessee's appeal was dismissed for non-payment of 10 percent pre- deposit despite entire disputed tax already deposited during investigation, such dismissal was unjustified and writ petition was allowed as relief confined to procedural ground, with remand to Appellate Authority for fresh consideration, without addressing merits of original dispute. GST: Where appeal against adjudication order was dismissed solely on ground that copy of impugned order filed was not self-certified, such defect was curable and opportunity should have been granted to cure it, hence straightway dismissal was unsustainable and appeal deserved consideration on merits after opportunity to remove deficiency
Delhi High Court
Where tax demand order was merely uploaded on GST Common Portal without separate service or acknowledgement, such upload alone did not amount to valid service and did not trigger limitation for appeal, thus petitioner was permitted to file statutory appeal within four weeks and appeal could not be rejected as time-barred on basis of portal upload
Gujarat High Court
Where tax authority cancelled registration of assessee-firm retrospectively citing fraud or suppression but failed to consider request for more time to submit key documents, and passed order without deciding on such request or examining supporting evidence, such cancellation violated principles of natural justice and was set aside. GST: Where petitioners' registration cancellation was followed by revocation proceedings requiring immediate payment via DRC-03 and rejection relied on purchases from dealers whose registration was cancelled suo motu without prior notice to petitioners, imposition of payment and reliance on uncommunicated grounds amounted to jurisdictional overreach, rendering rejection order unsustainable and liable to be quashed. GST: Where registration was cancelled and revocation was rejected, but appellate authority introduced new grounds beyond original show cause notice, and opportunity to submit documents was denied at cancellation stage, such orders were quashed as non-application of mind and prejudicial amalgamation of issues warranted setting aside of cancellation and appeal with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings with due process
Delhi High Court
Where DGGI issued composite show-cause notice to 146 noticees in proceedings relating to alleged IGST refund and ITC fraud, Notification No. 2/2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2022 was held to validly confer pan-India jurisdiction on officers for DGGI SCNs and circular allocating competent adjudicating officer was held to merely regulate allocation without conferring jurisdiction, therefore jurisdictional challenge was to be rejected GST: Where composite SCN arising from DGGI investigation was assigned to common adjudicating authority based on highest amount of demand criterion, such criterion was held objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable with rational nexus to single and consistent adjudication of one cause, and its application did not involve impermissible sub-delegation or enlargement of jurisdiction GST: Where Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi acting as common adjudicating authority passed order against Haryana-registered petitioners, appellate forum was held to lie before Commissioner (Appeals) of Commissionerate where common adjudicating authority was posted as already notified under Table III of Notification No. 2/2017 and clarificatory circular merely reiterated said position
Delhi High Court
Where penalty-only SCNs were issued prior to introduction of pre-deposit requirement for appeals, such pre-deposit condition could not apply retrospectively and GSTAT must entertain appeals in penalty-only cases arising from such SCNs without insisting on pre-deposit, ensuring appellate right was unaffected by whether first or second appeal was involved
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner filed appeal against adjudication order after delay due to serious illness of business manager, having paid mandatory pre-deposit and established sufficient cause, dismissal on limitation ground without considering circumstances was hyper-technical and not justified, thus, delay deserved to be condoned and appeal was to be restored for merit-based hearing
Calcutta High Court
Where statutory appeal was filed after mandatory pre-deposit but delayed due to serious illness of person entrusted with GST matters, supported by medical records, dismissing the appeal solely on limitation without considering sufficient cause was hyper-technical, and delay in filing appeal from date of communication deserved condonation with direction to admit appeal and decide on merits
Calcutta High Court
Where SCN and adjudication order were uploaded solely under 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab on portal without separate intimation, and appeal was dismissed on limitation grounds without a hearing on merits, such procedural lapse constituted violation of natural justice, thus quashing appellate order and directing appellate authority to admit appeal for hearing and decision on merits
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner company paid and reversed ITC under protest pursuant to adjudicating authority's demand, but appellate authority subsequently set aside original order and allowed appeal, refund officer could not reject refund claim on grounds of non-finality or proposed departmental appeal, as appellate order remained operative and binding until stayed or modified, making refund rejection unsustainable GST: Where petitioner, after demand against it was set aside in entirety on appeal, sought refund of amounts paid by filing RFD-01 with supporting documents, refund authority wrongly rejected refund citing lack of explicit refund direction, as statutory principles mandated consequential refund whenever original demand is quashed, requiring refund authority to process claim on merits under refund mechanism without re-examining demand issues GST: Where refund claim was rejected solely because of prospective departmental appeal and capitalization entries when no appeal was pending as on refund date, there was no hearing and no formed Commissioner opinion on adverse impact due to malfeasance or fraud, rejection was unsustainable since statutory prerequisites for withholding refund were not met and subsequent appeal did not cure these deficiencies
Allahabad High Court
Where a company was ordered to be wound up during pendency of four GST appeals and liquidator was appointed and informed appellate authority, but appeals were decided ex parte without notice or hearing to liquidator, violation of natural justice occurred, requiring ex parte appellate orders to be set aside for fresh decision after due notice and hearing to liquidator
Madras High Court
Where adjudication order confirmed tax, interest and penalty, and assessee paid tax and interest leaving only penalty unpaid, DRC-07 was issued solely for penalty, rejection of appeal for non-payment of 10 percent pre-deposit of penalty was unsustainable as proviso to Section 107(6) applies only where order demands penalty without any tax, thus appeal was to be restored for adjudication on merits
Delhi High Court
Where petitioner’s ITC in electronic credit ledger was blocked under Rule 86A, requested adjustment of blocked credit for pre-deposit against confirmed IGST demand was declined, since blocking does not constitute payment or appropriation towards an adjudicated demand and debit cannot occur until restriction is removed or modified, thus only unblocked ECL credit may be used for pre-deposit, not mandatorily cash ledger
Kerala High Court
Where assessee filed belated appeal invoking Notification No. 53/2023 allowing late appeals on payment of additional 2.5 percent but paid this amount after initial filing, rejection of appeal as time-barred without considering entitlement under notification or granting opportunity to cure payment defect was not justified, and appeal was required to be restored for reconsideration of notification eligibility
Rajasthan High Court
Where order-in-original was uploaded only on portal and petitioner became aware after recovery from Electronic Credit Ledger, resulting in 125 days delay in filing appeal under Section 107, delay was attributable to circumstances beyond control, so appeal was directed to be entertained and decided on merits if filed within prescribed time after this order
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee challenged Section 73 proceedings alleging non-service of statutory notice for wrongful ITC, but record showed service of a detailed demand- cum-show-cause notice for the relevant period, contention of absence of notice was unfounded and proceeding was not without jurisdiction, with any residual grievances to be adjudicated in statutory appeal. GST: Where assessee challenged unsigned and allegedly defective Form GST DRC- 07 electronic summary regarding period and quantum, such electronic defects alone did not affect jurisdiction of adjudication order, as summary cannot substitute main adjudication, and any inconsistency among notice, order, and summary must be tested on facts and can be redressed through statutory appeal. GST: Where assessee challenged imposition of interest and penalty as exceeding show-cause notice for period July 2017 to March 2018 invoking section 75(7), since determination of whether order exceeded notice required conjoint examination of notice and order, mere assertion did not warrant writ interference and remedy could be pursued before appellate authority. GST: Where assessee alleged denial of hearing during demand adjudication for July 2017 to March 2018 but records showed service of demand-cum-show-cause and no reply from assessee nor any material indicating exclusion from adjudicatory process, non-compliance with Section 75 could be addressed in statutory appeal and no ground for extraordinary interference was established.…
Madras High Court
Where electronic credit ledger was blocked under Rule 86A for alleged wrongful ITC and petitioner filed appeal with pre-deposit from cash ledger, deemed stay operated for recovery of balance, so no appropriation could be made from blocked credit ledger or cash ledger, though blocking under Rule 86A continued and unblocking request required consideration by authorities
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner challenged demand for alleged excess ITC and appeal delay resulted from illness of director and order was only uploaded on portal, refusal to condone delay and decide appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice, thus delay was condoned and Appellate Authority was directed to hear appeal on merits if filed within specified period after order upload
Madras High Court
Where assessee’s credit ledger was blocked under rule 86A pending appeal on wrongful ITC availment and statutory pre-deposit was made from electronic cash ledger, blocking under rule 86A remained provisional and capped at one year, deemed stay on recovery operated from appeal filing, prohibiting appropriation but not affecting ongoing blocking, thus unblocking request required consideration within rule 86A framework
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner filed appeal beyond condonable period due to medical ailments supported by medical certificate and appeal was dismissed as time-barred, delay was satisfactorily explained, rejection order was set aside and appeal was restored for consideration on merits after affording hearing, keeping all contentions open
Bombay High Court
Where assessee’s refund appeal was dismissed by Appellate Authority solely for non-attendance without addressing merits or providing a speaking order, such non-speaking dismissal violated statutory mandate and principles of natural justice, warranting quashing of impugned order and restoration of appeal for merit-based adjudication