Andhra Pradesh 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.
63 rulings found
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 registered dealer's GST registration was cancelled and no further business was conducted, uploading show cause notice only on GST portal without alternate service did not satisfy statutory requirement, resulting in breach of natural justice, so order based on such portal-only service was quashed, leaving liberty to initiate fresh proceedings as per law
Calcutta High Court
Where a single composite show cause notice under section 74 read with section 122 covered multiple financial years and was followed by year-wise DRC-01 summaries and demand order, issuance of such composite notice was beyond jurisdiction under CGST Act, making entire proceedings including demand order and DRC-01 summaries void and same were to be quashed
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner faced SCN and order alleging wrongful ITC under Section 74, but all documents including SCN, order and reminders on portal lacked digital or physical signatures and carried only a reference number, absence of mandated authentication deprived them of legal existence, rendering all actions non est and all such documents and consequential actions were set aside with liberty to proceed afresh as per law. GST: Where SCN and adjudication order alleging wrongful ITC and imposing demand, interest and penalty were only uploaded under Additional Notices And Orders tab without authenticated service, petitioner remained uninformed and was denied opportunity of personal hearing, such violation of statutory mandate and natural justice warranted setting aside of SCN, adjudication order and recovery, regardless of availability of appellate remedy
Allahabad High Court
Where authorities alleged firm availed and passed on fake ITC through bogus invoices and initiated simultaneous GST demand and BNS prosecution based on same facts, since genesis was GST non-payment and BNSS mandates such offences be investigated under special enactments, prosecution under BNS for same conduct was barred and all parallel criminal proceedings under general law were quashed against applicant
Delhi High Court
Where adjudication was challenged on ground that show cause notice was not duly served, depriving petitioner of opportunity to reply and liability was presumed by respondent without valid service, writ forum confined issue to validity of service and limitation, and as per Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh [2026] 188 was required to be addressed accordingly
Allahabad High Court
Where SCN proposed penalty of Rs. 20,000 but adjudication order confirmed penalty of Rs. 96,000, confirmation of penalty beyond proposed amount was in gross violation of section 75(7), rendering order without jurisdiction, requiring setting aside of such order and remand for fresh decision after affording due hearing
Allahabad High Court
Where SCN invoking extended period for tax or ITC involving fraud was issued without detailing statutory ingredients like fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax, continuation of proceedings was unsustainable as jurisdictional preconditions were not disclosed, leading to quashing of SCN with liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner challenged show cause notice continuing a previously set aside notice under Section 104, issue had already been adjudicated by Division Bench in Gyankeer Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CE and (Raj), and with identical circumstances there was no ground to depart from that precedent, allowing writ petition and quashing impugned show cause notice
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where tax determination proceedings for several periods were concluded by a single composite assessment order, such composite order was impermissible under GST law and accordingly set aside, with authorities permitted to issue separate period-wise orders after providing due opportunity and all consequential proceedings revoked
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered firm was assessed for multiple financial years under a single composite order in proceedings alleging fraud under Section 74, such order was invalid as each tax period requires separate adjudication, so composite order was unsustainable and impugned order was set aside with liberty to issue separate orders for each period in accordance with law
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioner’s appeal against order under section 74 was filed after limitation but within cutoff prescribed by Notification No. 53/2023 and payment condition was satisfied, notification applied to appeals pending or rejected for delay, so appellate authority erred in declining to entertain appeal, and rejection order was quashed with remand for decision on merits
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee challenged adjudication, appellate order and recovery proceedings on pure jurisdictional grounds such as competence and absence of cross-empowerment, and such questions involved no disputed facts but raised legal issues, writ petition was maintainable despite existence of an alternate remedy and matter was to be remanded to adjudicating authority for decision on jurisdictional issue first
GSTAT Thane
Where e-commerce operator transitioned pre-GST CENVAT and VAT credits to GST through TRAN-1 and no proceedings challenging eligibility of such credits were initiated or pending under erstwhile laws, initiation of recovery and denial of transitional credit solely at transition stage under GST Acts was beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable, as transitional provisions did not authorize fresh proceedings for admissibility under repealed laws. GST: Where appellant transitioned undisputed CENVAT credit via TRAN-1, authorities would be barred from reassessing correctness of erstwhile credits invoking transitional provisions, as invoice-level matching was futile for closing balances and ancillary discrepancies like mismatch of address or absence of description could not defeat transition; denial of transitioned input tax credit was unsustainable. GST: Where appellant transitioned Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) credit via TRAN-1 but later on they had to reverse it under protest being doubted by Department, denial of transition based on retrospective amendment and departmental circular was not sustainable since no notification had operationalised its exclusion and precedent of jurisdictional High Court as well as independent statutory reading supported transition, thus, making appellant's transition of KKC in order. GST: Where assessee transitioned CENVAT credit and VAT ITC balance on stock-in- trade as of 30.06.2017 and provided all requisite details without any specific objections or contrary evidence from revenue, generic allegations of missing documents could not justify denial in absence of any specific finding or material against assessee's claim.…
Kerala High Court
Where assessment and tax demand for zero rated supply were finalized solely based on Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, which had been declared ultra vires Section 16 of IGST Act, such assessment and summary lacked legal foundation and could not be sustained, requiring quashing of impugned orders
Kerala High Court
Where respondents issued a single composite show cause notice and summary covering multiple financial years, such composite notice was impermissible warranting quashing of consolidated notice and summary, with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year and exclusion of limitation period for reinitiation from issuance of composite notice till receipt of judgment copy
Gujarat High Court
Where department issued show cause notice and demand order for alleged fraud against a deceased taxpayer after GSTIN cancellation with nil demand, and petitioner, a housewife unrelated to business, presented death certificate, both SCN and demand order were quashed as issued against deceased, with liberty to proceed per law against petitioner if necessary
Rajasthan High Court
Where SCN proposing tax demand expressly contemplated personal hearing after reply due date and assessee filed timely reply with written personal hearing request, but officer passed ex parte order without fixing such hearing or considering reply, denial of opportunity breached natural justice and vitiated assessment, mandating setting aside of order and directing fresh proceeding after affording personal hearing
Allahabad High Court
Where registered person received notice under section 74 but was not offered any personal hearing, with 'NA' entered for hearing details and adverse order was passed, statutory mandate under section 75(4) for oral hearing before adverse decision was violated, non-filing of written reply did not negate right to oral hearing, making adverse order invalid