Madras High Court
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.
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
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
Failure to upload an adjudication order in regular portal tab, coupled with non- service of full order and subsequent delayed knowledge, justified writ interference despite limitation; dismissal of statutory appeal was set aside, delay condoned and appeal restored for adjudication on merits, assessee having made statutory pre- deposit. GST: Coercive garnishee recovery during pendency of a statutory appeal, despite requisite pre-deposit, was unjustified; in view of appellate restoration, garnishee order was quashed, while dismissal of appeal as time-barred was set aside and delay condoned, with appeal restored for decision on merits
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