Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
126 rulings found
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner, a registered person, claimed input tax credit for February and March 2020 and furnished returns within statutory cut-off under Section 16(5), denial of ITC solely citing limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and authorities were directed to reconsider and grant ITC if otherwise eligible
Patna High Court
Where Proper Officer issued order determining tax liability and attached bank account for FY 2022-23 before due date for annual return had expired, such premature adjudication was without authority and impugned order was set aside, requiring fresh proceedings to be initiated only after due date for filing annual return had passed
Madras High Court
Where search authorization issued in respect of petitioner partnership firm under Section 67(2) lacked DIN with only a generic assertion of technical difficulty and no contemporaneous record, and DIN was neither timely generated nor communicated to noticee, mandatory requirements of DIN display, contemporaneous recording of exception, regularization, and sharing with noticee were breached, rendering authorization non-compliant; authorities to initiate fresh proceeding
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
Bombay High Court
Where garnishee proceedings and recovery notices were initiated for interest on delayed payment despite petitioner’s pending representations disputing interest liability and computation, and no decision on these representations was made by authority, matter was required to be decided by passing a reasoned order on aforesaid representations, until then, no further recovery steps could be taken
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner was denied ITC due to delayed return filing and disallowance orders were passed before retrospective insertion of section 16(5), since new provision creates a non obstante retrospective relaxation against limitation under section 16(4), statutory right to claim ITC could not be defeated by circular or notification and petitioner was entitled to benefit of extended period if otherwise eligible
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner, a registered firm, was served with a composite adjudication order for multiple tax periods, since revenue did not dispute factual or legal infirmity, a single composite order for multiple periods was held unsustainable and required to be set aside, leaving authority free to issue separate orders for each period after following due process
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioner’s appeal against order under section 74 was filed after limitation but within cutoff prescribed by Notification No. 53/2023 and payment condition was satisfied, notification applied to appeals pending or rejected for delay, so appellate authority erred in declining to entertain appeal, and rejection order was quashed with remand for decision on merits
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit for February and March 2019 and filed returns on 12.11.2019, since returns were submitted within cut-off prescribed by Section 16(5) which has a non-obstante clause overriding Section 16(4), limitation under Section 16(4) was inapplicable and petitioner was eligible for ITC subject to other entitlement
Allahabad High Court
Where GST-registered person's registration was cancelled by a non-speaking order with no reasons or recorded satisfaction, such cancellation violated Article 14 and principles of natural justice and was unsustainable, therefore cancellation and consequential appellate order were quashed and matter was revived for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Where retrospective amendment to Section 17(5)(d) was challenged by filing belated appeal, though Appellate Authority lacked power to condone delay beyond statutory limit, High Court set aside dismissal of appeal as time-barred and remanded matter for fresh decision on merits
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
Madras High Court
Where petitioner with registrations in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra received a combined section 73 order and sought waiver of interest or penalty via single SPL-02 under section 128A(1)(b) after tax payment, proper officer could not decline jurisdiction for Maharashtra alone as same officer issued combined order and no statutory basis exists to split jurisdiction, requiring reconsideration
Kerala High Court
Returns for January to March 2020 filed on 25-12-2020 and 29-12-2020 were within cut-off prescribed under retrospective Section 16(5) of CGST Act; hence, petitioner was entitled to ITC notwithstanding expiry of CBIC circular’s rectification window regarding GST demand orders relating to Section 16(4) time-barred ITC
Gujarat High Court
Where ITC recovery was ordered against petitioners based on allegations of non-genuine inward supplies without addressing their detailed replies and documents and without granting an opportunity for personal hearing, passing a cryptic two-line order without reasons violated natural justice requirements, rendering the order unsustainable and necessitating its quashing for decision after proper hearing. GST: Where proceedings for recovery of ITC with interest were initiated without intimating date, time or venue for personal hearing even after reminders, and a cryptic order lacking reasons was passed, failure to provide statutory personal hearing before adverse decision amounted to breach of natural justice, thus vitiating adjudication and rendering impugned order liable to be quashed
Allahabad High Court
Where Tribunal did not notify next hearing date by uploaded judicial order after adjournment but proceeded ex parte without issuing fresh notice, and weekly cause list or administrative orders could not substitute statutory notice requirements under Rule 18, ex parte order was passed without due opportunity and was accordingly set aside with matter remanded
Rajasthan High Court
Where SCN proposing tax demand expressly contemplated personal hearing after reply due date and assessee filed timely reply with written personal hearing request, but officer passed ex parte order without fixing such hearing or considering reply, denial of opportunity breached natural justice and vitiated assessment, mandating setting aside of order and directing fresh proceeding after affording personal hearing
Uttarakhand High Court
Where GST registration of petitioner stood cancelled prior to issuance of show cause notice and SCN and adjudication order were served solely by uploading on portal, exclusive portal service was invalid as petitioner was no longer required to monitor portal, thus adjudication and appellate orders were quashed and revenue allowed to proceed afresh after valid service of SCN
Uttarakhand High Court
Where assessee submitted manual reply to SCN within prescribed time and adjudicating authority passed order without considering reply, technical objection regarding non-electronic filing was not accepted and non-appearance on hearing date could not justify ignoring reply, order suffered from gross violation of natural justice and stood vitiated, warranting quashing of order and remand for fresh decision considering reply
Allahabad High Court
Where registered person received notice under section 74 but was not offered any personal hearing, with 'NA' entered for hearing details and adverse order was passed, statutory mandate under section 75(4) for oral hearing before adverse decision was violated, non-filing of written reply did not negate right to oral hearing, making adverse order invalid