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.
101 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.…
Calcutta High Court
Where tax, interest and penalty demands were raised via SCN and order uploaded only on portal without direct intimation and reply was filed but no personal hearing was afforded before passing ex parte order, principles of natural justice were breached, requiring the adjudication to be quashed and matter reconsidered after granting effective hearing
Gujarat High Court
Where tax authority cancelled registration of assessee-firm retrospectively citing fraud or suppression but failed to consider request for more time to submit key documents, and passed order without deciding on such request or examining supporting evidence, such cancellation violated principles of natural justice and was set aside. GST: Where petitioners' registration cancellation was followed by revocation proceedings requiring immediate payment via DRC-03 and rejection relied on purchases from dealers whose registration was cancelled suo motu without prior notice to petitioners, imposition of payment and reliance on uncommunicated grounds amounted to jurisdictional overreach, rendering rejection order unsustainable and liable to be quashed. GST: Where registration was cancelled and revocation was rejected, but appellate authority introduced new grounds beyond original show cause notice, and opportunity to submit documents was denied at cancellation stage, such orders were quashed as non-application of mind and prejudicial amalgamation of issues warranted setting aside of cancellation and appeal with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings with due process
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
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered assessee dealing in handloom sarees was subjected to a single composite summary assessment order covering multiple tax periods, such an order was not sustainable since a composite assessment across years is invalid, and fresh proceedings must be initiated separately for each assessment year
Kerala High Court
Where authorities issued a composite show cause notice covering multiple assessment years and tax periods by combining distinct adjudications into one proceeding, such composite notice lacked legal sanction as per binding precedents and was therefore quashed, with liberty granted to issue separate notices for each assessment year or period
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where appellant, facing ITC mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, admitted oversight and paid tax with interest before SCN, but was issued SCN invoking Section 74 for suppression and penalized 100 percent, such invocation was unsustainable since no fraud, mis-statement or deliberate suppression was established and case fell under Section 73, rendering Section 74 action and penalty invalid
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where an assessee made pre-SCN payment of tax and interest for excess ITC and irregular TRAN-1 credit found in audit and there was no evidence of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression with intent, penalty under fraud provisions was not sustainable as mere audit detection does not amount to suppression, and voluntary payment warranted immunity from penalty under general provisions
Rajasthan High Court
Where real estate developer received show cause notice and order uploaded on portal without any digital or physical signature and recovery initiated, such unsigned documents lacked statutory authentication under Rule 26(3) and constituted a jurisdictional defect, rendering SCN, order, recovery notice and consequent bank attachment invalid and liable to be quashed
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
Gauhati High Court
Where GST registration of transport service provider was cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns and period for seeking revocation had expired, cancellation order was to be set aside and registration was to be restored subject to filing all pending returns within 30 days and petitioner remained liable for tax, interest, penalty and late fees
Gauhati High Court
Where registration of petitioner engaged in works contract services was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months during 2023-25 amid acute financial hardship, cancellation was set aside restoring registration, subject to filing all pending returns within 30 days, with liability for applicable tax, penalty, interest and late fees maintained from date of order
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner's registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns and appeal for restoration was dismissed as time barred, writ relief was allowed by setting aside cancellation on condition that all pending returns be filed within 30 days with requisite payments, and limitation for demand under Sections 73(10)/74(10) to run from date of present order except for period governed by Section 44
Kerala High Court
Where consolidated show cause notice, order, and DRC-01A were issued by authorities covering multiple years in a single composite proceeding, prior rulings establish such proceedings as impermissible, necessitating separate year-wise notices, resulting in quashing of composite SCN, order, and DRC-01A with liberty to initiate fresh year-wise proceedings within revised limitation period
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
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order confirmed tax, interest and penalty exceeding amount proposed in show-cause notice for April 2017 to March 2018, demand could not exceed SCN amount; matter remanded for fresh response by treating impugned order as SCN
Calcutta High Court
Where order under Section 73 was passed post summary SCN without affording assessee personal hearing and without communicating date, time or venue, requirement of Section 75(4) was infringed, thus order was to be set aside with direction to adjudicate afresh upon deposit of 10 per cent of disputed tax amount as writ was filed belatedly
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
Calcutta High Court
Where summary SCN and ex parte order were uploaded only under 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab without separate intimation resulting in delayed reply, and personal hearing was not granted despite section 75(4) mandate, cumulative procedural infirmities invalidated adjudication and required reconsideration of reply after affording personal hearing and passing a fresh reasoned order
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner received a composite show cause notice covering multiple financial years and challenged its legality, as separate notices were required for each assessment year and prior Division Bench decisions confirmed that such composite notices were unsustainable, same was to be quashed with liberty to authorities to issue separate notices for each relevant year