Punjab & Haryana 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
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where proceedings were initiated under sections 73 and 74 of CGST, PGST and HGST for credits availed under erstwhile Haryana VAT Act, such VAT-era credits were held outside purview of GST adjudication and determination provisions, making actions under sections 73/74 without jurisdiction, and proceedings could not be sustained against petitioners
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
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where show cause notice under section 74 did not disclose specific reasons and relied-upon documents were not supplied to petitioner, statutory requirement was not fulfilled and denial of opportunity vitiated proceedings, rendering consequent recovery and bank account attachment legally unsustainable and requiring fresh issuance of show cause notice with specific reasons
Himachal Pradesh High Court
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
Calcutta High Court
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
Andhra Pradesh High Court
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 Court
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
Madras High Court
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 Court
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
Madras High Court
Where registered purchaser claimed ITC on supplies from identified supplier and produced bank statements, invoices, e-way bills, ledgers and GSTR-2A/2B in response to SCN issued under Section 73, reversal of ITC solely due to supplier's registration cancellation without considering produced documents or affording opportunity for additional evidence could not be sustained and order was set aside for fresh adjudication
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner bank received a composite show-cause notice and adjudication order clubbing multiple financial years for alleged IGST liability involving fraud, since each financial year is a separate unit for limitation and notices cannot combine multiple years to overcome bar of limitation, such composite notice and order were held illegal and without jurisdiction and were quashed
Tripura High Court
Where department issued Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice and Order-in- Original for 2017-18 after expiry of five-year period from due date of furnishing annual return and without any notification extending limitation under Section 74 or Section 168A, such proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to law. GST: Where SGST authorities had already issued and dropped proceedings with respect to excess ITC availed for certain years and identical subject matter was included in respondent’s SCN and OIO, statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) against parallel proceedings applied, making such notices and orders without jurisdiction to that extent. GST: Bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies only where CGST and SGST proceedings involve identical subject matter; where SGST proceedings concerned GSTR- 1B/GSTR-3B mismatch and CGST proceedings related to short payment of tax, parallel CGST action was valid
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner-airline neither received services nor paid consideration, question whether petitioner-airline was “recipient” of CRS services and liable to IGST required determination; as issue involved jurisdiction of adjudicating authority and warranted deeper examination, writ petition was maintainable despite availability of statutory appeal
Bombay High Court
Where transferor company was dissolved post-amalgamation and all authorities were informed of cessation, issuance of show cause notice and demand order under Section 74 to non-existent transferor was without jurisdiction and void ab initio, as such proceedings cannot be sustained against an entity that ceased to exist following merger and registration cancellation
Rajasthan High Court
Where during search and seizure proceedings at business and partners' premises, substantial tax was extracted from petitioner via ITC reversal and cash entries before any show cause notice or voluntary acknowledgment, and contemporaneous records or safeguards for voluntary compliance were absent, such payment was not considered voluntary and retention of amount was unsustainable, necessitating refund of recovered amount. GST: Where petitioner claimed interest on refund amount alleging unauthorised recovery during search but investigation was still pending, no show cause notice was issued and no adjudication completed, entitlement to interest was premature, so grant of interest was declined pending final determination of liability after investigation, without prejudice to parties' rights on eventual outcome
Telangana High Court
Where prior writ order in petitioner’s case remanded assessment for breach of personal hearing mandate and directed adjudication of original SCN after granting hearing and considering reply, issuance of second SCN and fresh order for same year by AO was impermissible as it overreached remand scope, thus impugned order was set aside for adjudication on first SCN only with compliant hearing
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner in construction was issued a consolidated SCN and composite order covering GST demand, interest, and penalty for multiple years, such clubbing of periods was beyond statutory jurisdiction as assessments must be period-specific, making consolidated SCN, order, and recovery void ab initio and not cured by admission or estoppel, rendering writ maintainable and quashing impugned actions
Madras High Court
Where petitioner availed input tax credit on invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A due to technical glitches acknowledged by authorities, since statutory conditions for credit were otherwise met, denial of credit was not justified; as entitlement is established under Circular 183/15/2022-GST, no interest or penalty was payable
Madras High Court
Where notices and ex parte orders for ITC mismatch and delayed GSTR-9 were issued in name of deceased individual due to non-intimation of death by legal heir, orders were set aside and matter remitted for fresh decision on merits with pre-deposit, as ex parte adjudication was improper despite extended-period provision being validly invoked in present context. GST: Where demands were raised for 2017-2018 and 2019-2020 by issuing DRC-01A and DRC-01, and limitation periods stood extended due to statutory notifications and Supreme Court’s Covid-19 orders, adjudication under general demand provision remained maintainable even if extended- period proceedings were inapplicable, as law permitted passing of orders under general demand provision in such circumstances. GST: Where assessee died and no intimation of death was given, statutory liability for tax, interest or penalty determined against deceased for ITC mismatch and late fee continued upon legal heir, who was required to discharge such liabilities even if business was discontinued, as legal heir is responsible for dues of deceased under GST law
Madras High Court
Where petitioner disclosed outward supplies in GSTR-1 for certain periods but failed to discharge corresponding output tax through GSTR-3B on time, mere non-receipt of customer payments or lack of intent to evade tax could not alter statutory liability, but in light of section 128A and GST Council deliberations, such short payments warranted reconsideration under section 73 rather than section 74, hence matter required fresh decision accordingly