GSTAT Lucknow
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.
55 rulings found
GSTAT Lucknow
Where assessee availed ITC on supplies from a vendor whose GST registration was retrospectively cancelled and limited ITC was allowed by appellate authority based on specific invoice entries and subsequent portal amendments, since no evidence established that supplies were not received or invoices were fictitious, thus in absence of legal or factual infirmity appeal against first appellate order was to be dismissed
GSTAT Chandigarh
Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised ITC for period based on invoices issued for export supplies under bond/LUT, turnover for refund was determined by invoice date within relevant period, not actual export date, so denial on ground of subsequent export was unwarranted when export stood established and invoices fell in period, making refund allowable. GST: Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised ITC for export without payment of tax and department alleged minor inclusion of ineligible credits in Net ITC computation under rule 89(4), such ineligible ITC did not materially impact maximum refund, which remained higher than amount sanctioned, so refund grant required no disturbance and departmental appeal was dismissed
GSTAT Lucknow
Where appellant's demand for excess ITC due to GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch was confirmed ex parte despite appellant facing FIR, judicial custody, and fire incident affecting office, absence of proper opportunity before both adjudicating and appellate authorities warranted remand for fresh hearing in interest of natural justice GST: Where demand for ITC denial was raised solely on GSTR-2A mismatch without invoice-wise or category-wise verification, despite assessee providing reconciliation, RCM credits, and supplier/CA certificates, complete disallowance was unwarranted, and authorities were required to verify supporting evidence including RCM claims and certificates, necessitating reconsideration of ITC eligibility on merits GST: Where supplier issued invoices for renting of immovable property within State but discharged tax under IGST instead of CGST and SGST and appellant availed ITC under CGST and SGST with tax paid to Government, such ITC was correctly availed as supply was intra-State, with no revenue loss, and invoices remained eligible for ITC under CGST and SGST
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed returns for months September 2018 to March 2019 within extended deadline permitted by Section 16(5), denial of Input Tax Credit solely on ground of limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable, and petitioner remained entitled to ITC subject to fulfilling other conditions, as interest liability for belated payment was not contested in proceedings
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed monthly return for March 2019 on 23.10.2019 and claimed input tax credit, since return was within cutoff of Section 16(5), denial based on Section 16(4) limitation was unsustainable, requiring reconsideration and grant of input tax credit for March 2019 if otherwise eligible
GSTAT Lucknow
Where summary of proposed demand (DRC-01) was uploaded to appellant account without issuance of statutory show cause notice to correct taxable person, and summary was accompanied by SCN addressed to different taxpayer, failure to issue SCN and provide opportunity rendered demand proceedings void ab initio and entire assessment with tax, interest and penalty was set aside. GST: Where ITC of CGST and SGST was denied solely due to GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch without verifying possession of invoices, receipt of supplies or supplier tax payment as required by Section 16 and relevant Circular, and SCN was wrongly issued, such denial was unsustainable as non-reflection in GSTR-2A alone could not defeat ITC claim
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged reversal of input tax credit for delayed return filing and subsequently filed rectification application after retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) and 16(6) from 1 July 2017, with return filed within extended period and no revenue dispute on timing, rejection of appeal ignoring retrospective extension and rectification was perverse and orders were set aside
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit for March 2019 and filed return on 02.01.2020, since this was within cut-off date of 30.11.2021 prescribed by Section 16(5), denial of input tax credit on ground of limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and order declining credit was quashed for reconsideration under Section 16(5) if otherwise eligible
GSTAT Kolkata
Merely because inputs and outputs shared same HSN classification and manufacturing status was unverified, refund of accumulated ITC under an inverted duty structure could not be denied; in view of law that GST is levied on supply rather than manufacture, refund of accumulated credit from higher rated taxed inputs was legitimate GST: Where supplier of wearing apparel at 5 percent using inputs taxed at 5, 12 or 18 percent claimed refund for accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure, and there was no reduction of GST rate for inputs or outputs during relevant period, para 3.2 of Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST was inapplicable and refund could not be denied on basis of such circular; statutory refund formula would prevail. GST: Where respondent claimed refund of accumulated ITC on apparel supplies due to inverted duty structure for specific periods, and authorities verified period-wise computation as per Rule 89(5), absence of annual turnover figures in determination and compliance with Rule 89(5) meant refunds were correctly allowed and period- wise computation as required was not infringed. GST: Where refunds were claimed for inverted duty structure on apparel supplies and revenue alleged inclusion of ineligible ITC and verification infirmities, but appellate authority conducted detailed document-wise reconciliation and found claims in order, revenue’s failure to produce contrary evidence meant refund orders were sustained and appeals were dismissed as lacking merit
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed returns claiming Input Tax Credit for June 2018 to March 2019 on dates prior to statutory cut-off of 30.11.2021, denial of ITC solely on ground of belated filing was not justified and petitioner was entitled to ITC subject to other eligibility and order declining ITC on limitation was to be quashed
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
Madras High Court
Where petitioner was denied input tax credit solely due to filing returns beyond original statutory time under section 16(4), but subsequent statutory amendment under section 16(5) fixed new timeline linked to return due date, denial of ITC based on prior bar was not sustainable and disallowance was set aside to that extent
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 Thiruvananthapuram
Where business of sole proprietor was discontinued after GSTIN cancellation and no notice or inquiry was made to legal representative regarding inherited estate as required under Section 93(1)(b), proceedings continued against deceased person were impermissible, with liability of legal heir limited to inherited estate, making OIA and underlying proceedings unsustainable and to be set aside. GST: Where assessee filed GSTR-3B returns for July-2017 to February-2018 on 31-7- 2018 and March-2018 on 16-6-2019, within the revised time period permitted by retrospective amendment to Section 16(5), disallowance of input tax credit on ground of limitation was unsustainable and assessee was entitled to claimed ITC with consequential relief
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
GSTAT Kolkata
Refund of accumulated ITC claimed on export of goods could not be denied merely on basis of absence of toll plaza movements where goods were supplied under Bill To Ship To model and E way Bills, bilty copies, shipping bills, EGM details, transporter's certificate and bank statements established transportation and export; toll plaza receipts were not mandatory documents
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed relevant GST returns for tax periods April 2019 to March 2020 prior to 30.11.2021 cut-off prescribed under Section 16(5), denial of input tax credit solely for late filing under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and petitioner was entitled for reconsideration and grant of ITC subject to fulfilment of other conditions
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee filed rectification application for ITC after prescribed cut-off as per departmental circulars but statute provided no time limit, executive circulars imposing six-month cap could not override substantive right under Section 16(5), and rejection for delay was unsustainable so rectification application was to be reconsidered on merits unless delay was found exceptional
Madras High Court
Where petitioner filed March 2019 return on 30.10.2019 and was denied ITC due to limitation, retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) by Act 15 of 2024, along with Notification 17/2024-CT and Circular 237/31/2024, extended ITC time limit for FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 up to 30.11.2021, rendering limitation-based disallowance unsustainable