Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
97 rulings found
Rajasthan High Court
Where assessee filed statutory appeal after inordinate delay contending non- service of order as it was only uploaded on GST portal and became aware only upon bank account attachment, writ jurisdiction permitted condonation since delay arose from factors beyond control and denying appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice, so delay in filing was condoned and matter remitted for hearing subject to pre-deposit conditions
Rajasthan High Court
Where tax, interest and penalty were confirmed by Order-in-Original and rectification was rejected without granting hearing, but statutory appeal remedy before Appellate Authority existed, writ petition challenging impugned orders and seeking unblocking was not entertained, and petitioner was directed to avail appellate remedy, with assurance that appeal would be considered on merits without limitation objection
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner, after transitioning valid CENVAT credit into Electronic Credit Ledger, discharged appeal pre-deposit by debiting this credit, such payment constituted valid compliance as there was no statutory mandate restricting mode to cash, and CBIC administrative instruction could not override statutory provisions or vested credit rights, thus Tribunal’s rejection of such pre-deposit ground was unsustainable and same was to be quashed
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner filed statutory appeal with delay due to pendency of rectification and personal exigency and appeal was dismissed as time-barred, considering contest to levy and specific factual circumstances, delay was to be condoned and statutory appeal was to be restored for decision on merits after hearing
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner's GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months and appeal was dismissed solely on ground of delay, since petitioner was uneducated, relied on accountant or advocate, and was genuinely unaware of cancellation, order dismissing appeal was set aside and appellate authority was directed to consider appeal on merits subject to statutory deposits
Bombay High Court
Where assessee challenged order-in-original citing non-supply of relied-upon documents despite records showing proper service via registered and alternate emails, and no specific missing document or resultant prejudice was pleaded, with statutory appeal remedy available and no exceptional circumstances shown, writ under Article 226 was not maintainable and only statutory appellate route could be pursued
Delhi High Court
Where CGST authorities initiated proceedings and issued show cause notice before SGST authorities on same subject matter for overlapping periods, statutory bar on parallel proceedings under section 6(2)(b) was not attracted, and jurisdictional objection could not be a ground to bypass statutory appeal remedy, making writ interference unwarranted. GST: Where goods were seized without invoices during search and initial proceedings under section 67(7) were concluded with order dropping proceedings, a subsequent show cause notice under section 74, culminating in an order after investigation and reply, constituted a distinct proceeding, not a parallel adjudication of same subject matter, thus both orders were legally sustainable. GST: Where petitioner challenged proceedings under writ jurisdiction despite availability of undisputed statutory appeal under section 107, and no jurisdictional infirmity or violation of natural justice was found on objections raised under section 6(2)(b), writ remedy was declined as no ground existed to override efficacious appellate remedy, relegating petitioner to appeal process
Meghalaya High Court
Where a firm challenged demand and assessment alleging bias and natural justice violation due to seizure-based assessment and involvement of same officer in inspection and appeal, with issues on proper officer jurisdiction, reliance on seized estimates, residuary rate, and reconciliation, statutory appellate remedy under GSTAT existed, no actual bias or illegality was shown, thus, writ petitioner was to be dismissed as disputed facts were fit for GSTAT consideration
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
Gauhati High Court
Where DGGI officer issued a consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice covering multiple financial years under CGST regime and petitioners challenged permissibility of such consolidation after not filing a reply, since law as per Tata Projects Ltd. permits consolidated notices and adjudication for multiple periods, writ challenge to such consolidated notice was not maintainable. GST: Where petitioners received consolidated show cause notice for tax or ITC not involving fraud and failed to reply before seeking writ remedy nearly a year later, since initiation under general or fraud-based provisions is fact-specific and determination of fraud requires factual examination, writ jurisdiction was not maintainable at notice stage and parties must pursue statutory adjudication and appeals
Delhi High Court
Where petitioner challenged SCN and order-in-original alleging tax not paid and fraud-related demand under CGST after being heard and afforded detailed adjudication, existence of effective statutory appellate remedy before Appellate Authority meant writ could not be entertained, and questions of fact or competing statutory provisions including period-specific applicability were to be decided in statutory appeal
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
GSTAT Hyderabad
Where penalty was imposed for alleged fake invoicing without supply and all proceedings including show cause notice, order-in-original and appellate order arose prior to 01.10.2025, no pre-deposit was required for appeal before GSTAT as proviso mandating pre-deposit for penalty-only appeals came into effect prospectively from 01.10.2025 via Finance Act, 2025
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner deposited substantial amount during investigation and rectified shortfall in statutory pre-deposit before appellate order, dismissal of appeal for non-payment of initial pre-deposit was unsustainable since procedural defects in filing requirements are curable, thus impugned appellate order was set aside and appeal restored for decision on merits
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where show cause notice or order in original was served only by uploading it under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on GST portal without acknowledgment or reply by assessee, such upload did not constitute valid service and ex parte proceedings were liable to be restored to the stage of issuance of show cause notice and in cases were appeals were dismissed on grounds of limitation, such appeals were to be restored on its original numbers
Rajasthan High Court
Where appeal against OIO could not be filed within limitation due to lack of knowledge of GST portal, appellate procedure and non-communication of order except by portal upload, delay was liable to be condoned in writ jurisdiction and appellate authority was to be directed to entertain appeal if filed within 30 days
Uttarakhand High Court
Where assessees' appeals under Section 107 were dismissed as time-barred and sought condonation beyond statutory limits invoking Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, since GST is a special fiscal statute prescribing specific limitation with restricted condonation, Section 5 stood excluded by necessary implication and appeals beyond prescribed period could not be entertained
Gauhati High Court
Where Proper Officer issued a consolidated show cause notice and passed a single order covering multiple financial years for confirming tax, interest and penalty, issuance of such consolidated notice and order was within jurisdiction and authority, and challenge to competence on this ground was not sustainable with merits of the order left open for statutory appeal
Patna High Court
Challenge to ex parte GST demand failed where SCN and reminders were issued through portal and registered e-mail, containing specific ITC mismatch figures; petitioner neither categorically denied e-mail receipt nor disclosed correct GSTR-2A ITC, and bare allegations of non-service and denial of hearing lacked credibility. GST: Writ challenging ex parte DRC-07 demand was not maintainable where petitioner failed to avail statutory appeal, voluntarily undertook to pay dues and issued post-dated cheques to secure de-attachment, later dishonoured; having benefited from de-attachment without protest or duress, petitioner was estopped and lacked bona fides to invoke Article 226
Patna High Court
Where petitioner challenged adjudication and recovery orders by writ, withdrawal was permitted with liberty to file statutory appeal before Appellate Authority, excluding period spent in writ from limitation computation and allowing condonation, but re-agitation of previously adjudicated contention was not permitted, while all other contentions remained open for appeal consideration. GST: Where petitioner sought refund of tax recovered during statutory appeal period but filed writ after three months and only within the condonable one-month period, writ registration after defect removal did not cure limitation default, and refund was denied as petitioner failed to approach authority within statutory appeal window prescribed for remedy