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
Composite GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years was unsustainable and related demand orders being unsustainable was required to be quashed; department permitted to issue separate fresh year-wise notices
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner faced multiple demands for same period under section 73 and had filed GSTR-3B by 30.11.2021, since retrospective amendment to section 16(5) regularized ITC, demand raised by subsequent order was not sustainable and same was to be quashed, order-in-original required re-adjudication in light of retrospective benefit and verification of return dates
Madras High Court
Where assessee discharged entire tax liability within statutory time but part of payment was mistakenly remitted under IGST head with no such liability, substantial compliance for waiver existed since full payment as per notice was made and rejection solely due to wrong head payment was unsustainable; matter required reconsideration with opportunity to rectify head-wise payment
Gujarat High Court
Where department issued show cause notice and tax order in deceased proprietor's name after cancellation of registration with zero dues, in view of fact that petitioner widow had no business connection, all such proceedings and consequential actions like bank account freezing were void and quashed, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against legal heir if permissible under law
Karnataka High Court
Where ex parte GST orders were passed and assessee raised arguable issues on reverse charge liability and demand exceeding stated in show cause notice, in peculiar facts of case belated statutory appeals was to be allowed for adjudication on merits
Kerala High Court
Where consolidated show cause notice covered multiple financial years in a single notice and precedents mandated separate notices for each assessment year, issuing a composite SCN was impermissible and such notice was to be quashed with liberty to issue fresh year-wise notices
Gauhati High Court
Where proper officer issued only summary of SCN without serving substantive show cause notice before passing order in original under section 73(9), such determination was unsustainable and order was to be quashed requiring proper officer to issue show cause notice detailing cause of action for initiation of proceedings as mandated under section 73(1)
Kerala High Court
Where taxpayer claimed input tax credit for specific months and filed returns within special cut-off period provided under non-obstante credit provision, denial of credit on ground of general time-limit was invalid since special provision overrode general timeline and entitlement must be reconsidered based only on fulfilment of non-obstante credit criteria if otherwise eligible
Kerala High Court
Where revenue issued a single composite show cause notice covering multiple tax periods without alleging fraud, such composite notice was unsustainable in law as per binding Division Bench precedents, and was required to be quashed with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant period, while excluding time from composite notice date to judgment delivery for limitation
Gauhati High Court
Where registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months and petitioner cited financial hardship while expressing readiness to comply with proviso to Rule 22(4), restoration relief was warranted, with restoration subject to compliance, fresh limitation to run from this order, and petitioner remaining liable for all outstanding tax, interest, penalty and late fee
Gauhati High Court
Where GST registration of a proprietorship was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months, petitioner was permitted to seek restoration by filing pending returns and paying tax, interest, penalty, and late fee as per Rule 22(4), upon which authority must consider and restore registration expeditiously, with statutory limitation to run from date of this order
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee's export of services and refund eligibility were denied solely due to alleged non-furnishing of Letter of Undertaking without examining nature of transactions or actual furnishing of Letter of Undertaking as required under law, both adjudication and appellate orders were to be quashed and matter was to be remanded for fresh consideration regarding jurisdiction and refund entitlement based on Letter of Undertaking
Telangana High Court
Where proper officer issued tax demand order for April 2019 to March 2020 after the expiry of extended limitation on 31.08.2024, delay in order upload was a jurisdictional defect not cured by administrative workload or minor revenue loss, and as limitation affected authority to tax, both order- in-original and order-in-appeal were unsustainable and set aside
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee's GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months, assessee was permitted to seek restoration on compliance with Rule 22(4) by filing pending returns and clearing tax, interest, penalty and late fee dues, with limitation under section 73(10) running from date of order except for FY 2024-25 as per section 44
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
Karnataka High Court
Where registered person paid IGST on transaction initially considered inter- State which was later found to be intra-State requiring CGST/KGST, original authority erred in demanding additional tax, interest, and penalty without proper adjustment or refund, necessitating quashing of demand orders and restoration for fresh adjudication in compliance with statutory provisions and refund rules
Kerala High Court
Where composite show cause notice was issued covering multiple financial years in a situation not involving fraud, such composite notice was impermissible as per settled law and had to be quashed, with liberty granted to issue separate notices for each relevant year, and limitation period to be computed accordingly
Kerala High Court
Where consolidated show cause notice and summary was issued under GST covering multiple financial years for demand not involving fraud, binding precedent required separate notices for each period and thus composite notice and summary were found unsustainable and quashed, but fresh notices for each period could be issued subject to exclusion of interim period for limitation computation
Kerala High Court
Where department issued a composite show cause notice and consolidated order covering multiple financial years for alleged tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite proceedings were invalid in light of Division Bench rulings and required quashing, with liberty to issue separate notices for each financial year, while all other contentions remained open