Bombay 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.
8 rulings found
Bombay High Court
Where film producer gave licensed rights to distributors to broadcast and show cinematographic films for a limited term and supplied content via encrypted hard disks or electronic links without providing software, same was to be classified as temporary licensing of IPR under SAC 997332 taxable at 12 percent applied, and not as supply of information technology software taxable at 18 percent since delivery mode and content format did not satisfy statutory classification for software. GST: Where petitioner gave licensed cinematographic rights to distributors and paid GST at 12 percent under SAC 997332 before CBIC circulars clarified overlap between 12 percent (SAC 9973) and 18 percent (SAC 9996) rates, such circulars would be binding and applicable to entire licensing chain; so confining benefit only to distributor-exhibitor transaction and not to producer-distributor transaction was contrary to law and not justified
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
GSTAT Kolkata
Where assessee supplied packaged tea taxed at 5 percent using packing materials taxed at 12 percent or 18 percent, resulting in ITC accumulation, refund of ITC under inverted duty structure was allowable since statutory provisions and CBIC circular recognised packing materials as eligible inputs, and refund could not be denied merely because principal input and output attracted identical tax rate. GST: Where respondent supplied packaged tea using bulk tea both taxed at 5 percent and packing materials taxed at 12 or 18 percent, and claimed refund of accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure, Circular 135/5/2020 was inapplicable as there was no change in GST rate on same goods, and statutory refund entitlement could not be curtailed by such circular
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
Rajasthan High Court
Where a school challenged levy and collection of GST on affiliation fees via circular and notice, and precedence established parity between school and college affiliations regarding GST applicability, levy on school affiliation fees was held unsustainable and both impugned circular and subsequent notice along with all consequential proceedings were to be quashed on the basis of parity with legal precedent
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
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was issued and uploaded without mandatory Document Identification Number despite CBIC circular, such omission rendered order non-est and invalid, and uploading on portal could not cure defect, making assessment liable to be set aside with liberty for fresh assessment after due notice and DIN assignment
Madras High Court
Where assessee manufacturing combed cotton yarn used certain inputs taxable at higher rates than output and claimed refund of accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure, rejection of refund on ground that principal input matched output rate was improper since statute allows refund if any input attracts higher GST, circular restricting such refund was unconstitutional and refund with interest was directed