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.
60 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
Delhi High Court
Where registered person was issued adverse order in Form DRC-07 without being given personal hearing, statutory mandate required hearing either on request or whenever adverse decision was contemplated, such order passed without personal hearing was unsustainable and was set aside with directions for fresh decision after affording effective personal hearing
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered taxpayer supplying works contract services to Government Departments was subjected to a single composite assessment order covering multiple years, such composite assessment was impermissible, so the impugned summary order was set aside and respondents could initiate fresh proceedings for each assessment year separately, with all consequential proceedings revoked
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
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
Madras High Court
Where assessment order and DRC-7 confirmed tax demand exceeding SCN and failed to account for IGST already belatedly paid via GSTR-3B with DRC-7 ignoring such appropriation, demand confirmation was beyond SCN scope and, subject to partial remittance by petitioner, assessment order was set aside for reconsideration post issue of fresh SCN. GST: Where petitioner sought cancellation of GST registration due to business discontinuation and authorities rejected application solely for outstanding tax demand, discontinuation constitutes a valid statutory ground for cancellation and outstanding dues can be recovered post-cancellation, so rejection solely on demand grounds was untenable and authorities must reconsider cancellation as per law
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order and SCN demanding tax, interest and penalty were uploaded only under portal tab 'Additional Notice and Orders' without separate intimation and showed 'NA' against personal hearing, petitioner remained unaware and could not reply, leading to breach of natural justice and quashing of order in original with matter remanded for hearing
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
Allahabad High Court
Where show cause notice regarding tax or ITC involving fraud was uploaded only on GST portal after cancellation of assessee's registration and no alternative service was effected, assessee was not obligated to check portal post-cancellation, thus, such service was improper, violating principles of natural justice, and impugned assessment order 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 revenue issued a composite show cause notice covering multiple years to assessee for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite notice was impermissible under GST law, and therefore was quashed, with liberty to issue separate year-wise notices for each relevant period
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged adjudication order for July 2017 to March 2018 and no opportunity of hearing was granted despite show cause notice indicating an adverse decision, such order was unsustainable for breach of mandatory hearing requirement under statutory scheme, and matter required remand for fresh decision after granting personal hearing with attachment order quashed
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order for tax determination was passed after fixing personal hearing before expiry of reply period, with order uploaded incorrectly on portal and full demand realized by bank attachment, opportunity to respond was not afforded in compliance with statutory requirement, thus adjudication was set aside and consequential actions quashed pending proper reply and personal hearing
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
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where assessee challenged adjudication order alleging denial of personal hearing before adverse determination, and revenue admitted hearing was not granted, non-grant of hearing violated mandatory statutory requirement under section 75(4), vitiating adjudication, thus impugned order stood set aside and matter to proceed afresh after granting hearing
Kerala High Court
Where a composite show cause notice and consequential order were issued covering multiple financial years for demand of tax or ITC not involving fraud, such composite proceedings were impermissible as per binding Division Bench decisions and both notice and order were to be quashed with liberty to authorities to issue separate notices for each year
Kerala High Court
Where composite show cause notice and order were issued to petitioner covering multiple financial years for tax or ITC not involving fraud, such consolidated proceedings were impermissible as per binding rulings, and composite notices and orders were quashed with liberty to revenue to issue separate notices for each relevant year
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