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.

457 rulings found

Calcutta High Court9 Jul 2026
For assesseeRemanded
Shyam Traders v. State of West Bengal
Statutory appellate powers which permitted only confirmation, modification or annulment, where Appellate Authority, while dealing with ex parte order confirming tax, interest and penalty for alleged short- payment on outward supplies and availing excess ITC, directed parties to appear before Adjudicating Authority for further proceeding, such remand exceeded statutory appellate powers and Appellate Authority should decide issue within statutory limits. GST: Where despite express statutory prohibition, Appellate Authority remanded matter to Adjudicating Authority for allowing admissible ITC while rectification was rejected as time-barred without addressing jurisdictional defect, both orders were to be set aside; writ remedy was maintainable despite existence of alternative appellate remedy
- CGST S.107
- CGST S.161
0
Karnataka High Court9 Jul 2026
For assesseeRemanded
Sepl Infra (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)
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
- CGST S.107
- CGST S.79
Calcutta High Court9 Jul 2026
For assessee
Rajat Dalmia v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue
Where proceedings under West Bengal GST Act were initiated by issuing Form GST DRC-01 omitting date, time, and venue for personal hearing and marking those as 'not applicable', thus denying petitioner an opportunity of hearing, entire assessment and demands founded on such defective show cause notice were vitiated and required to be set aside, with liberty for fresh proceedings after granting proper hearing
Telangana High Court9 Jul 2026
For assessee
JK Technology v. Deputy State Tax Officer
Where registration was cancelled for non-furnishing of returns though SCN alleged fraud, such cancellation was invalid as order rested on a ground not mentioned in SCN, breaching requirement to specify precise grounds with material, therefore SCN and cancellation order were quashed and GST registration was restored, with liberty to issue fresh SCN on proper grounds with supporting documents
- CGST S.29
- CGST Rules R.22
0
GSTAT Cuttack8 Jul 2026
For assessee
Manoranjan Dash v. Commissionerate of CT GST
Where assessee deposited pre-deposit at first appeal stage exceeding percentage of tax remaining in dispute after first appellate order, no further pre- deposit was required for admission of Tribunal appeal since earlier payment equalled or surpassed statutory requirement based on surviving disputed tax, rendering any fresh deposit unjustified
- CGST S.112
- CGST S.107
0
Himachal Pradesh High Court8 Jul 2026
For assesseeRemanded
Rajat Bansal v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST)
Where order dated 17.01.2025 cancelled registration retrospectively from 15.03.2022 without recording reasons for such retrospectivity in SCN or order, even though material showed no functioning unit at declared premises, retrospective cancellation was to be set aside and petitioner was entitled to a fresh reasoned decision on effective date, with actions post 17.01.2025 remaining intact
Himachal Pradesh High Court8 Jul 2026
For assesseeRemanded
Friends Alloys v. Union of India
Where petitioner challenged order-in-original and GST DRC-07 summary by writ petition despite statutory remedy of appeal under section 107, petitioner was required to pursue appellate remedy and period spent in writ was to be excluded from limitation, allowing appeal to be filed within thirty days
- CGST S.107
- CGST S.74
0
Calcutta High Court8 Jul 2026
For assesseeRemanded
Sanat Kumar Hazra v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Howrah and Kadamtala Charge
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
- CGST S.74
- CGST S.75
0
Andhra Pradesh High Court8 Jul 2026
For assessee
Phoenix Medical Syatems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
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 Court8 Jul 2026
For assesseeRemanded
Emas Gold and Diamonds LLP v. Joint Commissioner
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
- CGST S.74
- CGST S.67
0
GSTAT Cuttack8 Jul 2026
For assessee
Manoranjan Dash v. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT GST
Where appellant disputed any further statutory pre-deposit for Tribunal appeal after already depositing ten per cent of original disputed tax at first appeal, and first appellate order had reduced tax demand, no further pre-deposit was required for Tribunal stage since requirements under section 112 stood satisfied by earlier deposit. GST: Where Appellate Authority reduced demand and appellant filed Tribunal appeal paying court fee of Rs. 3,000 though minimum court fee prescribed under Rule 110(5) was Rs. 5,000 at Rs. 1,000 per one lakh, short payment existed and appellant was required to pay the balance
Andhra Pradesh High Court8 Jul 2026
For assessee
P. Venkataramaniah & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner ST
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
- CGST S.73
- CGST S.75
0
Allahabad High Court7 Jul 2026
For assessee
Shree Ganesh Infra v. State of U.P
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
0
Rajasthan High Court7 Jul 2026
For assesseeRemanded
Infinite Ev Solutions v. Deputy Commissioner
Where petitioner's GST registration was cancelled and statutory appeal was filed with delay of 167 days due to bona fide, uncontrollable reasons including business closure and fraud-tag impacting livelihood, and Appellate Authority otherwise lacked jurisdiction to condone such delay, non-adjudication would cause grave prejudice so delay was condoned and appeal was directed to be entertained on merits
- CGST S.107
- CGST S.29
0
Madras High Court7 Jul 2026
For assesseeRemanded
WFB Baird and Company India (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer I
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 Court7 Jul 2026
For assessee
SYA Homes v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
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
- CGST S.77
- CGST Rules R.89
0
Madras High Court7 Jul 2026
For assesseeRemanded
Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Baskar Selvakumar
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
- CGST S.74A
- CGST S.74
0
Calcutta High Court7 Jul 2026
For assessee
Ashok Parakh v. State of West Bengal
Where ex parte assessment and appellate orders arose due to statutory notices and orders uploaded only in 'Additional Notices/Orders' tab by incorrect tabulation, and GSTN was aware of such glitch, petitioner could not be held liable for ex-parte assessment, thus, assessment as well as appellate orders were unsustainable for breach of natural justice and both orders were to be set aside with liberty to revenue to issue fresh notice
- CGST S.169
- CGST S.73
0
Allahabad High Court6 Jul 2026
For assesseeRemanded
Jay Dee Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner State Tax SGST
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
- CGST S.75
- CGST S.73
0
Andhra Pradesh High Court6 Jul 2026
For assesseeRemanded
Parsam Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
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
- CGST S.75
0

Every ruling, in plain sight.

Outcome

Topic

Provision

Decision date

Shyam Traders v. State of West Bengal

Sepl Infra (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)

Rajat Dalmia v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue

JK Technology v. Deputy State Tax Officer

Manoranjan Dash v. Commissionerate of CT GST

Rajat Bansal v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST)

Friends Alloys v. Union of India

Sanat Kumar Hazra v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Howrah and Kadamtala Charge

Phoenix Medical Syatems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Emas Gold and Diamonds LLP v. Joint Commissioner

Manoranjan Dash v. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT GST

P. Venkataramaniah & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner ST

Shree Ganesh Infra v. State of U.P

Infinite Ev Solutions v. Deputy Commissioner

WFB Baird and Company India (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer I

SYA Homes v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Baskar Selvakumar

Ashok Parakh v. State of West Bengal

Jay Dee Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner State Tax SGST

Parsam Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax