Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
106 rulings found
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and failure to respond to notice, restoration of registration was to be allowed as subject to petitioners filing all pending returns within 30 days and remained liable for arrears comprising tax, interest, penalty and late fee
Gauhati High Court
Where search was conducted at business premises of partnership firm under Section 67 based on FORM GST INS-01 authorization, plea that search was vitiated for want of authorization failed as valid authorization existed, statute did not require prior disclosure of reasons to taxable person, and adjudicating authority was to verify validity of authorization and records during adjudication. GST: Where department raised demand alleging misdeclaration or suppression after search and investigation found incriminating documents, absence of scrutiny proceedings under Section 61 did not invalidate consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice since search under Section 67 and investigation provided foundation, but if any demand rests solely on return scrutiny, relevant statutory compliance must be ensured and can be examined during adjudication. GST: Where petitioner received consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice invoking Section 74(1) for certain years and Section 74A(1) for another, objection to consolidation was untenable as no bar exists against a multi-year notice, but authority must determine liability and applicability of each provision separately for each financial year with attention to limitation and statutory requirements. GST: Where SCN invoked penalty provisions under both sections 74 or 74A and 122 in respect of same act or omission, such reference in notice does not violate bar against double penalty under section 75(13) at proposal stage, but authorities must ensure no double penalty is actually imposed during adjudication and imposition in compliance with statutory prohibition.…
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioner-entity registered under section 12AA of income tax act, 1961 carried out pollution control and treatment of industrial waste, such activity is preservation of environment and falls under clause 2(r)(iv) of Chapter 99, thus services attracted Nil rate of GST as per Notification 12/2017 and levy under Notification 11/2017 was not applicable. GST: Where petitioners, having relied on charitable exemption under section 12AA of Income tax act, 1961, did not pay GST for specified period but later obtained registration and began paying tax, invocation of section 74 on grounds of mis- declaration or wilful suppression was not justified as all facts were known, there was no mala fide intent or deliberate evasion, and show cause notice was quashed
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
Delhi High Court
Where GST-registered partnership challenged demand raised on grounds of non-consideration of reply to SCN involving allegations of suppression, since full opportunity to contest was provided and disputes pertained to merits involving record appraisal, remedy lay with appellate authority and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not warranted, thus writ petition was not maintainable GST: Where petitioner was issued a consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years for alleged fraud under audit, statutory provisions did not require separate notices per year and allowed composite notices, especially where patterns over years were relevant, so mere consolidation of demand periods did not render such notice jurisdictionally defective or warrant writ interference, though limitation objections for any year required fact-based appellate examination
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee proved possession of invoices, receipt of goods, and payment, denial of input tax credit solely due to supplier's default in GST deposit and non-reflection in GSTR-2A was unsustainable in absence of collusion, and department ought first to proceed against defaulting supplier, making impugned recovery from assessee without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed GST: Where notice invoking section 74 was issued for raising demand in respect of alleged ineligible or excess ITC for 2018-19 solely on bare assertions of fraud or wilful misstatement without particulars, and reply with supporting documents was not addressed, such notice was ex facie time-barred under section 73(10), recourse to extended limitation was without jurisdiction and proceedings were liable to be quashed
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
Allahabad High Court
Where registered dealer's GST registration was cancelled and no further business was conducted, uploading show cause notice only on GST portal without alternate service did not satisfy statutory requirement, resulting in breach of natural justice, so order based on such portal-only service was quashed, leaving liberty to initiate fresh proceedings as per law
Calcutta High Court
Where a single composite show cause notice under section 74 read with section 122 covered multiple financial years and was followed by year-wise DRC-01 summaries and demand order, issuance of such composite notice was beyond jurisdiction under CGST Act, making entire proceedings including demand order and DRC-01 summaries void and same were to be quashed
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 authorities alleged firm availed and passed on fake ITC through bogus invoices and initiated simultaneous GST demand and BNS prosecution based on same facts, since genesis was GST non-payment and BNSS mandates such offences be investigated under special enactments, prosecution under BNS for same conduct was barred and all parallel criminal proceedings under general law were quashed against applicant
Delhi High Court
Where adjudication was challenged on ground that show cause notice was not duly served, depriving petitioner of opportunity to reply and liability was presumed by respondent without valid service, writ forum confined issue to validity of service and limitation, and as per Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh [2026] 188 was required to be addressed accordingly
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