Supreme Court
For assessee
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.
8 rulings found
Supreme Court
SLP was filed against impugned order of High Court holding that where refund granted to assessee on export of goods was sought to be demanded under Rule 96(10), since Notification No. 20-2024, dated 8-10-2024 was issued during pendency of appeal filed by assessee against such demand, whereby Rule 96(10) was omitted, proceedings of order in original as well as order passed by appellate authority were to be set aside; instant court held issues were squarely covered by Goodluck India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. and dismissed SLP
Supreme Court
SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee telecom company was formed by NCLT-approved merger of entities with due intimation to GST authorities and department issued show cause notice and order in name of one amalgamating entity post-merger, initiation or continuation of proceedings against a non-existent entity post merger was void ab initio and without jurisdiction, rendering such orders unsustainable
Supreme Court
Notice issued in SLP filed against impugned order of High Court holding that where assessee construction contractor challenged penalty order for alleged irregular input tax credit on grounds of natural justice and jurisdiction after appeal was dismissed on limitation, since statutory appeal before GST Tribunal was enabled with additional grace period and Tribunal was competent to examine factual and legal grounds, writ petition under Article 226 could not substitute appellate remedy and same was to be dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal
Supreme Court
Where SCN for ITC mismatch and short payment for periods 2018-2019, 2019- 2020 and 2020-2021 was issued on 13.06.2025 after expiry of limitation, statutory outer limit including COVID exclusion ended on 28.02.2025, and audit communications in 2024 did not extend statutory deadlines, notice was time-barred and invocation of omitted explanation to extend limitation was not tenable. GST: Where department initiated demand proceedings alleging ITC taken without documents and suppression but show cause notice contained only bare assertions without foundational facts required for extended limitation, such notice and resultant order were invalid, however liberty was granted to initiate fresh proceedings under section 74 with necessary foundational facts before prescribed date
Supreme Court
Review petition dismissed against dismissal of SLP that telecommunication towers does not qualify test of permanency as they are not ‘attached to earth’, they can be dismantled and moved and are never erected with an intent of conferring permanency and their placement on concrete bases was only to enable those towers to overcome vagaries of nature, they can be considered as moveable property eligible for ITC
Supreme Court
Where State issued SCN dated 13.06.2025 for 2018-19 after annual return due date was extended to 31.12.2020 and limitation period, after excluding COVID period of 1 year 2 months, expired on 28.02.2025, SCN was time-barred under general provision and interference with such notice on ground of limitation was justified GST: Where assessee received a show cause notice invoking extended period on grounds of fraud or concealment without specifying material facts or particulars, and State sought to rely on a counter affidavit to justify allegations, such notice was invalid as its validity must stem from inherent content, rendering extended period invocation and consequent proceedings unsustainable
Supreme Court
SLP dismissed against order of high court that no GST is leviable on assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot with building, as such transfer of benefits arising from immovable property is not a 'supply'.'
Supreme Court
SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where neither any finding with regard to fraud had been noticed nor mis-statement nor suppression of fact had been recorded at any stage, and assessee had proved actual movement of goods and payment of tax, proceedings under section 74 could not be initiated against assessee