GSTAT Raipur
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.
17 rulings found
GSTAT Raipur
Where scrutiny of e-way bills and subsequent proceedings led to disputed liability for two invoices, and Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief for one invoice (GST-1399) and sustained demand for another (GST-125), with respondent not challenging relief on GST-1399 before Tribunal, only GST-125 remained in controversy, leaving relief on GST-1399 undisturbed and outside Tribunal’s purview. GST: Where assessee, accused of duplicate e-way bill generation and non-payment, specifically requested a personal hearing and submitted defence, adjudicating authority confirmed demand without granting post-reply hearing or giving reasoned decision, such order violated statutory mandate for opportunity of hearing and duty to record reasons, hence original adjudication was vitiated for non-compliance with legal requirements. GST: Where dispute survived for single invoice with two e-way bills for same vehicle, non-cancellation was admitted and no primary records or evidence were produced to prove asserted system glitch, appellate proceedings could not cure breach of statutory personal hearing at original stage, warranting limited remand for fresh determination after affording statutory hearing and considering primary evidence. GST: Where demand was confirmed on duplicate e-way bills against same invoice with unpaid tax alleged, and cancellation of the second e-way bill was raised in appeal, reference by appellate authority to statutory cancellation mechanism did not introduce a new ground, since existence and non-use of cancellation window was relevant to assess appellant's defence of unintentional duplication.…
GSTAT Agra
Where survey at brick kilns revealed excess or unaccounted bricks and coal not recorded in books and persons present failed to produce documents, initiation of confiscation proceedings with penalty and fine under section 130 was impermissible, as proper procedure required tax determination as if supplied under section 35(6) read with sections 73 and 74, rendering confiscation unsustainable GST: Where excess or unaccounted stock found at respondents' brick kilns led to confiscation and penalty orders, and Commissioner (Appeals) quashed both confiscation and penalty due to lack of legal basis, revenue's appeals confined only to fine could not be sustained in absence of a surviving confiscation, rendering such appeals meritless and not maintainable
GSTAT Ghaziabad
Departmental appeal involving disputed tax of about Rs. 6.30 lakh was liable to dismissal at threshold, as Circulars dated 05-07-2024 and 22-05-2026 prescribed Rs. 20 lakh monetary limit and furthe, Revenue had failed to establish any exception; administrative authorisation could not override binding litigation policy
GSTAT Ghaziabad
Where State Tax Department filed appeal against penalty order relating solely to e-way bill penalty of Rs. 88,074, since disputed penalty amount was below prescribed Rs. 20 lakh monetary limit and no recognised exception or reasoned exercise of residual power was shown, appeal was rightly dismissed at threshold for failing monetary limit and absence of case-specific justification
GSTAT Ghaziabad
Where department filed appeal where GST amount in dispute was only Rs. 1.99 lakh while monetary threshold limit set for filing appeal by relevant circulars is Rs. 20 lak, since Revenue failed to prove any exception that would allow a low-value claim to proceed, appeal was to be dismissed at threshold without adjudication on merits
GSTAT Ghaziabad
Where Revenue filed appeal before GSTAT against quashing of IGST penalty of Rs. 5,78,160, same was held inadmissible as Circular No. 2425008 dated 5-7-2024 prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for departmental appeals and Revenue failed to establish that case fell within any specified exclusion or exception, consequently appeal was to be dismissed without adjudication on merits
Delhi High Court
Where penalty-only SCNs were issued prior to introduction of pre-deposit requirement for appeals, such pre-deposit condition could not apply retrospectively and GSTAT must entertain appeals in penalty-only cases arising from such SCNs without insisting on pre-deposit, ensuring appellate right was unaffected by whether first or second appeal was involved
Supreme Court
Notice issued in SLP filed against impugned order of High Court holding that where assessee construction contractor challenged penalty order for alleged irregular input tax credit on grounds of natural justice and jurisdiction after appeal was dismissed on limitation, since statutory appeal before GST Tribunal was enabled with additional grace period and Tribunal was competent to examine factual and legal grounds, writ petition under Article 226 could not substitute appellate remedy and same was to be dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal
GSTAT Cuttack
Where appellant, a works contractor for Government departments and public authorities, had discharged entire GST liability before initiation of proceedings but demand of interest and penalty was confirmed under section 74 and first appeal was rejected on limitation without examining merits, operation of appellate order and recovery of disputed demand were to be stayed during pendency of section 112 appeal as recovery despite compliance with pre-deposit would defeat appellate remedy and cause irreparable prejudice
GSTAT Kolkata
Where applicants filed interlocutory applications for early hearing of 21 appeals before GSTAT citing substantial financial prejudice caused by denial of refund and pendency, with all procedural prerequisites fulfilled and respondents raising no objection to early listing, applicants established a compelling case for priority hearing and their applications for early hearing were to be accordingly allowed
GSTAT Thane
Where refund order under section 142(3) as well as order in first appeal was passed by applying section 11B of Central Excise Act, appeal against such order was maintainable before CESTAT and not GSTAT, rendering revenue's appeal before GSTAT not maintainable
GSTAT Hyderabad
Where penalty was imposed for alleged fake invoicing without supply and all proceedings including show cause notice, order-in-original and appellate order arose prior to 01.10.2025, no pre-deposit was required for appeal before GSTAT as proviso mandating pre-deposit for penalty-only appeals came into effect prospectively from 01.10.2025 via Finance Act, 2025
Orissa High Court
Where assessee's appeal faced statutory pre-deposit difficulties due to misclassification of interest as tax in DRC-07 and rectification was time-barred, remanding case to Appellate Authority for fresh hearing was necessary since relegating assessee to GSTAT appeal would not serve justice and disputed matters on ITC reversal, interest and penalty required reconsideration on merits
GSTAT Cuttack
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
GSTAT Cuttack
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
Orissa High Court
Where petitioner secured appellate relief for refund of GST amount paid under protest and there was no pending proceeding or Commissioner’s order withholding refund in RFD-07 Part A at relevant date, Deputy Commissioner could not lawfully deny refund by relying on potential appeal or unexpired limitation
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee's appeal under section 107 against ex-parte order for excess ITC was rejected as time-barred and Tribunal was still non-functional, writ against appellate order was maintainable as filing was within statutory window prescribed under Section 112 and Ministry Notification; alternative remedy would not oust Article 226 jurisdiction. GST: Where assessee’s appeal under section 107 was dismissed as time-barred after prior rectification was pursued in good faith and within statutory limitation, principles of section 14 of Limitation Act applied to exclude period spent on rectification proceedings, making appeal filed within condonable one month; thus, appeal would not be time-barred. GST: Where assessee filed appeal within condonable period after OIO confirming excess ITC, absence of a separate condonation application should not have led to summary dismissal, as statutory scheme and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC contemplated affording at least one opportunity to explain delay; thus, non-adherence would render appellate order unsustainable and required restoration for fresh consideration after giving such opportunity