Uttarakhand 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.
38 rulings found
Uttarakhand High Court
Where adjudication order determining tax, interest and penalty was passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing, even though petitioner had not opted for personal hearing, once adverse decision was contemplated, obligation to provide personal hearing persisted, thus, impugned order was to be quashed and matter was to be reassessed after granting such opportunity
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner received a single composite assessment order under section 74 covering multiple tax periods, such composite adjudication was impermissible as each tax period requires distinct notice and adjudication, making impugned consolidated assessment unsustainable, thus same was to be set aside with liberty to issue separate notices for each 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
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where petitioners challenged show cause notices alleging ITC availment through fake invoices, as these notices merely reproduced statutory phrases of fraud or suppression without disclosing foundational facts or sufficient reasoning, action was unsustainable and notices were to be quashed with liberty to respondent to issue fresh notices in accordance with law
Supreme Court
SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee telecom company was formed by NCLT-approved merger of entities with due intimation to GST authorities and department issued show cause notice and order in name of one amalgamating entity post-merger, initiation or continuation of proceedings against a non-existent entity post merger was void ab initio and without jurisdiction, rendering such orders unsustainable
Karnataka High Court
Where manpower service provider deposited amounts through DRC-03 ahead of any statutory demand or fraud allegation, without DRC-04 acknowledgment and without interest or penalty as required for fraud matters, such payment was not voluntary under GST rules, thus, rejection of refund of such amount was erroneous and refund with interest was directed, keeping adjudication on underlying SCN open
Calcutta High Court
Where a notice and subsequent recovery order were issued in name of deceased sole-proprietor for fraud-related tax demands after death, such proceedings were void ab initio since SCN must be directed to legal representatives under legal-heir liability scheme, making determination against a non-existent person impermissible and vitiating demand and recovery actions based on such notice
Supreme Court
Where SCN for ITC mismatch and short payment for periods 2018-2019, 2019- 2020 and 2020-2021 was issued on 13.06.2025 after expiry of limitation, statutory outer limit including COVID exclusion ended on 28.02.2025, and audit communications in 2024 did not extend statutory deadlines, notice was time-barred and invocation of omitted explanation to extend limitation was not tenable. GST: Where department initiated demand proceedings alleging ITC taken without documents and suppression but show cause notice contained only bare assertions without foundational facts required for extended limitation, such notice and resultant order were invalid, however liberty was granted to initiate fresh proceedings under section 74 with necessary foundational facts before prescribed date
GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram
Where assessee faced SCN alleging ineligible ITC based on suppression for multiple years, but there was no proof of fraud, willful misstatement, or contumacious intent, and statutory reconciliations were properly disclosed, mere availment of self-assessed ineligible ITC did not amount to suppression, so demands under section 74 could not be sustained and appeal was allowed. GST: Where SCN under section 74(1) alleged suppression due to ineligible ITC but did not mention non-reply to audit queries or final audit report and Revenue for first time in appeal raised failure to furnish audit information, such new ground violated natural justice as it lacked specificity, proof of willful suppression, or statutory foundation, rendering appellate reversal unsustainable and assessee's appeals allowable
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered dealer trading in computers and related goods was issued a single show cause notice and composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods, such composite proceedings were unsustainable since law prohibits issuance of a single notice or order for more than one tax period, resulting in setting aside of impugned composite order
Supreme Court
Where State issued SCN dated 13.06.2025 for 2018-19 after annual return due date was extended to 31.12.2020 and limitation period, after excluding COVID period of 1 year 2 months, expired on 28.02.2025, SCN was time-barred under general provision and interference with such notice on ground of limitation was justified GST: Where assessee received a show cause notice invoking extended period on grounds of fraud or concealment without specifying material facts or particulars, and State sought to rely on a counter affidavit to justify allegations, such notice was invalid as its validity must stem from inherent content, rendering extended period invocation and consequent proceedings unsustainable
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner faced SCN and order alleging wrongful ITC under Section 74, but all documents including SCN, order and reminders on portal lacked digital or physical signatures and carried only a reference number, absence of mandated authentication deprived them of legal existence, rendering all actions non est and all such documents and consequential actions were set aside with liberty to proceed afresh as per law. GST: Where SCN and adjudication order alleging wrongful ITC and imposing demand, interest and penalty were only uploaded under Additional Notices And Orders tab without authenticated service, petitioner remained uninformed and was denied opportunity of personal hearing, such violation of statutory mandate and natural justice warranted setting aside of SCN, adjudication order and recovery, regardless of availability of appellate remedy
Allahabad High Court
Where SCN proposed penalty of Rs. 20,000 but adjudication order confirmed penalty of Rs. 96,000, confirmation of penalty beyond proposed amount was in gross violation of section 75(7), rendering order without jurisdiction, requiring setting aside of such order and remand for fresh decision after affording due hearing
Allahabad High Court
Where SCN invoking extended period for tax or ITC involving fraud was issued without detailing statutory ingredients like fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax, continuation of proceedings was unsustainable as jurisdictional preconditions were not disclosed, leading to quashing of SCN with liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner challenged show cause notice continuing a previously set aside notice under Section 104, issue had already been adjudicated by Division Bench in Gyankeer Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CE and (Raj), and with identical circumstances there was no ground to depart from that precedent, allowing writ petition and quashing impugned show cause notice
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where tax determination proceedings for several periods were concluded by a single composite assessment order, such composite order was impermissible under GST law and accordingly set aside, with authorities permitted to issue separate period-wise orders after providing due opportunity and all consequential proceedings revoked
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered firm was assessed for multiple financial years under a single composite order in proceedings alleging fraud under Section 74, such order was invalid as each tax period requires separate adjudication, so composite order was unsustainable and impugned order was set aside with liberty to issue separate orders for each period in accordance with law
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee challenged adjudication, appellate order and recovery proceedings on pure jurisdictional grounds such as competence and absence of cross-empowerment, and such questions involved no disputed facts but raised legal issues, writ petition was maintainable despite existence of an alternate remedy and matter was to be remanded to adjudicating authority for decision on jurisdictional issue first
Kerala High Court
Where respondents issued a single composite show cause notice and summary covering multiple financial years, such composite notice was impermissible warranting quashing of consolidated notice and summary, with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year and exclusion of limitation period for reinitiation from issuance of composite notice till receipt of judgment copy
Gujarat High Court
Where department issued show cause notice and demand order for alleged fraud against a deceased taxpayer after GSTIN cancellation with nil demand, and petitioner, a housewife unrelated to business, presented death certificate, both SCN and demand order were quashed as issued against deceased, with liberty to proceed per law against petitioner if necessary