Uttarakhand High Court
For assesseeRemanded
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.
11 rulings found
Uttarakhand High Court
Where assessee filed rectification application within time under Section 161 read with Notification 22/2024-CT, treating three-month timeline for disposal as mandatory was incorrect since such period is directory, hence expiry does not render authority functus officio and rejection as time-barred despite timely application was unsustainable and matter is to be decided on merits
Allahabad High Court
Where Adjudicating Authority, after passing ex parte order without considering assessee's replies, issued a rectification order without notice and sustained demand, such rectification was impermissible since it was not for an error apparent but involved merit review, denial of hearing vitiated proceedings, thus only permissible course was recall of earlier order and fresh decision after hearing
Gujarat High Court
Where refund was rejected, rectification sought within statutory period was disposed by a reasoned order, and appeal was filed against both rejection and rectification, limitation for appeal must be computed from rectification order and not from earlier rejection, thus, appellate authority erred in treating appeal as time- barred based on original order and matter was liable for decision on merits
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner was denied ITC due to delayed return filing and disallowance orders were passed before retrospective insertion of section 16(5), since new provision creates a non obstante retrospective relaxation against limitation under section 16(4), statutory right to claim ITC could not be defeated by circular or notification and petitioner was entitled to benefit of extended period if otherwise eligible
Madras High Court
Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A was available where proceedings had been initiated under section 73 even in respect of self assessed tax arising from belated filing of GSTR 3B, non obstante clause in section 75(12) permitting direct recovery under section 79 could not exclude such cases from amnesty scheme once liability was determined under section 73 GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A having been accepted and Form GST SPL 05 issued, authorities could not subsequently declare such approval void by invoking section 161 except in contingencies specifically contemplated under Rule 164(16) or 164(17) GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being governed by mandatory timelines under Rule 164, belated filing of application or payment beyond prescribed period could not be condoned on basis of substantial compliance, and rejection of waiver claim was justified GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being subject to mandatory filing timelines under Rule 164, belated or non filing of application on plea of lack of knowledge of section 73 order could not be condoned, and writ petitions were liable to be dismissed
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
Kerala High Court
Where assessees faced tax determination proceedings on the basis of unsigned notices and orders, quashment of those orders barred authorities from curing defects by re-uploading the same orders and required issuance of fresh notices or orders as per law, with earlier directions enabling such re-issuance or barring limitation set aside and liberty to issue new notices/orders expressly retained
Calcutta High Court
Statutory appellate powers which permitted only confirmation, modification or annulment, where Appellate Authority, while dealing with ex parte order confirming tax, interest and penalty for alleged short- payment on outward supplies and availing excess ITC, directed parties to appear before Adjudicating Authority for further proceeding, such remand exceeded statutory appellate powers and Appellate Authority should decide issue within statutory limits. GST: Where despite express statutory prohibition, Appellate Authority remanded matter to Adjudicating Authority for allowing admissible ITC while rectification was rejected as time-barred without addressing jurisdictional defect, both orders were to be set aside; writ remedy was maintainable despite existence of alternative appellate remedy
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
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner filed appeal against order-in-original with delay and omitted to disclose pending rectification application due to Chartered Accountant error, omission deprived petitioner of a material ground for delay condonation, thus order dismissing appeal as time-barred was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted to appellate authority for fresh consideration of condonation application and if satisfaction, decide appeal on merits
Telangana High Court
Where assessee filed rectification application against original order within limitation, appeal was filed within three months of rectification rejection, and all statutory remedies were diligently pursued, dismissal of appeal as time- barred due to technical defects in memo was unjustified, and pragmatic approach called for remand for decision on merits