Kerala High 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.
101 rulings found
Kerala High Court
Where revenue issued a composite show cause notice covering multiple years to assessee for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite notice was impermissible under GST law, and therefore was quashed, with liberty to issue separate year-wise notices for each relevant period
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged adjudication order for July 2017 to March 2018 and no opportunity of hearing was granted despite show cause notice indicating an adverse decision, such order was unsustainable for breach of mandatory hearing requirement under statutory scheme, and matter required remand for fresh decision after granting personal hearing with attachment order quashed
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and failure to respond to notice, restoration of registration was to be allowed as subject to petitioners filing all pending returns within 30 days and remained liable for arrears comprising tax, interest, penalty and late fee
Kerala High Court
Where a single composite order covered multiple financial years for adjudication of demand not involving fraud, such composite order was invalid in light of Division Bench rulings, consequently order was quashed with liberty granted to issue separate notices for each relevant financial year
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order for tax determination was passed after fixing personal hearing before expiry of reply period, with order uploaded incorrectly on portal and full demand realized by bank attachment, opportunity to respond was not afforded in compliance with statutory requirement, thus adjudication was set aside and consequential actions quashed pending proper reply and personal hearing
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where final ITC demand under section 73 was confirmed under CGST and SGST heads on basis of a separate working treating ITC of 2018-19 as claimed in 2019-20, without explaining abandonment of primary IGST reconciliation or basis of computation, such demand was held unsustainable as adjudicating authority had failed to establish computation from books and records GST: Where ITC was denied merely on account of mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, authorities having failed to conduct any enquiry into concerned suppliers or their tax payments and having not properly examined appellant’s reconciliation, such mismatch could justify verification but could not by itself be treated as conclusive proof of wrongful availment of ITC GST: Where demand under section 73 was confirmed under CGST and SGST despite appellant’s reply and reconciliation being confined to IGST, and authorities failed to consider reconciliation or resolve inconsistency between two computations, demand was held unsustainable as appellant had not been given proper opportunity to contest CGST and SGST liability GST: Where for Financial Year 2019-20 mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A was alleged and demand was confirmed by adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority, authorities having failed to establish breach of section 16(2)(c) and section 16(2)(aa) being inapplicable for the relevant period, impugned adjudication and appellate orders were to be set aside and matter was to be remanded for fresh adjudication strictly confined to show-cause notice GST: Where ITC dispute for Financial Year 2019-20 was decided against appellant for non-production of supplier certificates prescribed under CBI…
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where assessee claimed ITC on 2017-18 invoices in 2018-19 which matched legal timeline, and denial was based only on GSTR-2A non-reflection without verifying supplier payment or invoices, such denial was unsustainable because GSTR-2A was merely facilitative and demand could not be sustained without proper invoice-wise verification as per statutory circular GST: Where assessee was proceeded for excess ITC due to GSTR-3B versus GSTR- 2A mismatch and Order-in-Original was passed without granting personal hearing as required when adverse decision was contemplated, absence of such hearing itself vitiated order, rendering it unsustainable in law and necessitating its setting aside GST: Where assessee faced demand for excess ITC based on GSTR-3B and GSTR- 2A mismatch, and proceedings were initiated directly based on audit reference with proper demand notices but without scrutiny notice in ASMT-10, absence of ASMT-10 notice did not invalidate proceedings as demand initiation was independent of return scrutiny, thus, issue was answered against assessee
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee proved possession of invoices, receipt of goods, and payment, denial of input tax credit solely due to supplier's default in GST deposit and non-reflection in GSTR-2A was unsustainable in absence of collusion, and department ought first to proceed against defaulting supplier, making impugned recovery from assessee without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed GST: Where notice invoking section 74 was issued for raising demand in respect of alleged ineligible or excess ITC for 2018-19 solely on bare assertions of fraud or wilful misstatement without particulars, and reply with supporting documents was not addressed, such notice was ex facie time-barred under section 73(10), recourse to extended limitation was without jurisdiction and proceedings were liable to be quashed
GSTAT Lucknow
Where assessee's ITC allocation between IGST, CGST and SGST showed head- wise mismatch but total eligible ITC in electronic credit ledger equaled claimed ITC, such mismatch did not constitute excess ITC and principal demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained in absence of actual excess availment, as clarified by CBIC and supported by Rule 88B
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
Kerala High Court
Where a composite show cause notice and adjudication order covering multiple financial years was issued to petitioner for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite notice is unsustainable in law, thus both the notice and subsequent orders founded on it were quashed, with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant period being preserved
Kerala High Court
Where a composite show cause notice and consequential order were issued covering multiple financial years for demand of tax or ITC not involving fraud, such composite proceedings were impermissible as per binding Division Bench decisions and both notice and order were to be quashed with liberty to authorities to issue separate notices for each year
Kerala High Court
Where consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years was issued in respect of tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite notice was invalid as per precedent disallowing clubbing distinct periods, warranting quashing of consolidated notice and granting liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year
Kerala High Court
Where composite show cause notice and order were issued to petitioner covering multiple financial years for tax or ITC not involving fraud, such consolidated proceedings were impermissible as per binding rulings, and composite notices and orders were quashed with liberty to revenue to issue separate notices for each relevant year
Calcutta High Court
Where ex parte adjudication was made for ITC mismatch without verifying eligibility as mandated by Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, and no opportunity for petitioner to respond was given, such assessment was unsustainable and was quashed with matter left for reconsideration in accordance with prescribed verification procedure and principles of natural justice
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered trader was subjected to a composite assessment order imposing 100 percent penalty covering multiple tax periods through a single order, such composite assessment was unsustainable as statutory scheme requires separate period-wise orders, and allowing composite orders impairs statutory rights of appeal and renders legislative provisions otiose, thus impugned order was set aside
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered dealer trading in computers and related goods was issued a single show cause notice and composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods, such composite proceedings were unsustainable since law prohibits issuance of a single notice or order for more than one tax period, resulting in setting aside of impugned composite order
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
Allahabad High Court
Where adjudication order under Section 73 imposed penalty not proposed in show-cause notice and confirmed tax demand beyond proposal, such order was without jurisdiction due to violation of statutory bar under Section 75(7), rendering demand exceeding notice amount fundamentally illegal and liable to be set aside
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