Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
33 rulings found
Supreme Court
Where writ petition was filed due to non-constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal and, thereafter, GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted and had become functional, assessee was relegated to statutory appellate remedy under section 112; SLP was disposed of with liberty to mention matter before President of GST Appellate Tribunal for consideration of interim relief, with discretion to grant priority hearing
GSTAT Cuttack
Where assessee deposited pre-deposit at first appeal stage exceeding percentage of tax remaining in dispute after first appellate order, no further pre- deposit was required for admission of Tribunal appeal since earlier payment equalled or surpassed statutory requirement based on surviving disputed tax, rendering any fresh deposit unjustified
GSTAT Cuttack
Where appellant disputed any further statutory pre-deposit for Tribunal appeal after already depositing ten per cent of original disputed tax at first appeal, and first appellate order had reduced tax demand, no further pre-deposit was required for Tribunal stage since requirements under section 112 stood satisfied by earlier deposit. GST: Where Appellate Authority reduced demand and appellant filed Tribunal appeal paying court fee of Rs. 3,000 though minimum court fee prescribed under Rule 110(5) was Rs. 5,000 at Rs. 1,000 per one lakh, short payment existed and appellant was required to pay the balance
Gujarat High Court
Where without furnishing mandatory undertaking or pre-deposit for stay as required by Circular 224/18/2024-GST and relevant notifications, assessee filed GSTAT appeal seven months after Order-in-Appeal was passed, refund claim for tax recovered from assessee was untenable
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner construction contractor challenged penalty order for alleged irregular input tax credit on grounds of natural justice and jurisdiction after appeal was dismissed on limitation, since statutory appeal before GST Tribunal was enabled with additional grace period and Tribunal was competent to examine factual and legal grounds, writ petition under Article 226 could not substitute appellate remedy and same was to be dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal
Orissa High Court
Where assessee challenged adjudication and appellate orders through writ petition citing non-application of mind by first appellate forum, in view of fact that GST Appellate Tribunal had already been constituted and timelines for appeal were prescribed by Finance Ministry Notification, assessee was required to pursue statutory appellate remedy under Section 112, rendering continuation of writ petition unwarranted
Orissa High Court
Refund of accumulated ITC recovered under retrospectively amended Rule 89(5) could be challenged before GSTAT; mere existence of departmental Circulars did not render appeal futile, as GSTAT could decide facts and law independently and thus, writ was to be dismissed with liberty to file statutory appeal
Calcutta High Court
Where appeal against cancellation of GST registration was dismissed and tribunal was not constituted at time of filing of writ petition, writ was entertained with interim protection on deposit of 20 percent, and on tribunal becoming functional, petitioner was to be granted liberty to approach tribunal within four weeks, with direction to respondents to take no coercive action against petitioner during that period
Orissa High Court
Where petitioner secured appellate relief for refund of GST amount paid under protest and there was no pending proceeding or Commissioner’s order withholding refund in RFD-07 Part A at relevant date, Deputy Commissioner could not lawfully deny refund by relying on potential appeal or unexpired limitation
Orissa High Court
Where adjudication order under section 74 was affirmed in first appeal and petitioner sought writ on grounds of absence of appellate forum, later notification constituted GSTAT with extended deadlines, making writ remedy unavailable since statutory appellate mechanism was operational, requiring petitioner to comply with prescribed appeal process and deposit requirements under section 112
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 challenged IGST demand on export supplies under Notification 41/2017-IGST (Rate) alleging violation of natural justice and non-consideration of documents, since appellate authority duly considered materials but found insufficient invoice-wise correlation, and no breach of natural justice, jurisdictional error, or mala fides was established, writ remedy could not be entertained and statutory appeal before GSTAT was proper course
Telangana High Court
Where department prematurely recovered entire confirmed GST demand from petitioner's bank before expiry of second appeal period and subsequently re- credited amount to e-cash ledger, dispute being limited to refund to bank versus e- cash credit, petitioner was granted liberty to apply for refund and application was to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law