Madras High Court
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.
54 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit but filed returns belatedly and sole reason for denial was delayed filing, since statutory amendment extended time limit and petitioner filed within such extended period, rejection based solely on delay was not tenable and impugned order of denial was unsustainable
Madras High Court
Where petitioner availed input tax credit on invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A due to technical glitches acknowledged by authorities, since statutory conditions for credit were otherwise met, denial of credit was not justified; as entitlement is established under Circular 183/15/2022-GST, no interest or penalty was payable
Madras High Court
Where demand arising from mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B was challenged as time barred on ground that proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 73 within stipulated time, benefit of exclusion of limitation during Covid-19 period applied and proceedings could not be held barred by limitation
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner with multiple state registrations received foreign IT services invoiced to one state but consideration and tax under reverse charge were discharged by another unit which issued self-invoice as prescribed, denial of input tax credit on grounds of invoice address was unsustainable since statutory conditions for ITC were satisfied and self-invoice constituted valid tax-paying document. GST: Where petitioner cross-charged service value and corresponding input tax credit from head office to other states without ISD registration for July 2017 to March 2019, since unamended law did not mandate ISD registration and distribution route was not compulsory as per statutory materials, such cross-charge was not illegal and penalty demand was unsustainable
Madras High Court
Where rejection of ITC was based on limitation period before insertion of section 16(5) which provided statutory relaxation on time limit for returns and rectification, subsequent change in law meant old basis of rejection no longer applied, so ITC denial based on pre-amendment position could not be sustained and impugned order was set aside
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner challenged denial of input tax credit solely on ground of delayed filing of returns for December 2018 to March 2019, and returns were actually filed within statutorily extended window, rejection of credit on time-bar ground was unsustainable and order to that extent was to be set aside; authority to reconsider claim as per extended cut-off if otherwise eligible
Madras High Court
ITC on works contracts and construction of immovable property used for renting is blocked under Section 17(5)(d); rented building being not “plant or machinery,” ITC claimed on such construction was rightly denied GST: Prior intimation to department, without statutory approval, does not preclude invocation of extended limitation; where blocked ITC was availed beyond prescribed time and without concurrence, extended period and equal penalty for suppression were rightly invoked despite subsequent reversal of credit. GST : Joint assessment proceedings for multiple tax periods justified; common show cause notice issued for multiple tax periods cannot be challenged
Madras High Court
Where petitioner purchased goods under invoices containing vehicle numbers from a registered supplier who filed returns and paid tax, denial of input tax credit solely due to absence of lorry receipts and weighment slips without enquiry into genuineness of supply was unsustainable, thus order confirming denial on that basis was set aside and required reconsideration
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee bona fide purchased goods from registered suppliers, paid GST via banking channels, filed required GST returns, and availed ITC, denial of ITC solely due to supplier’s non-payment of tax was unjustified and revenue’s remedy lay against defaulting supplier, with liberty to act only if there was material indicating collusion or lack of bona fides by assessee
AAR West Bengal
Section 16(5), inserted by Finance Act (No. 2), 2024, only extends time-limit for availing ITC and does not create fresh right to reclaim credit reversed for supplier- reporting mismatch; hence, ITC on 2020 invoices, already reversed under AAR order, could not be re-availed
Gauhati High Court
Where purchaser trading in scrap batteries bought goods from registered suppliers, paid GST through banking channels, filed GST returns, and availed input tax credit, denial of ITC solely on ground of supplier's default in depositing tax was unjustified in absence of collusion or lack of bona fides, and remedy lay against defaulting supplier, thus impugned orders were set aside
Gauhati High Court
Where scrap battery trader purchased goods from registered suppliers, paid price plus GST via bank and claimed ITC with proper invoices and returns, ITC could not be denied solely due to supplier's non-payment of GST in absence of wrongdoing or collusion by purchaser, remedy for non-payment by supplier lay against supplier, not purchasing dealer
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner, a registered taxpayer, claimed ITC for April 2018 to March 2019 but was denied due to alleged delay in return filing, since statutory scheme under Section 16(5) allowed ITC if returns were furnished by 30.11.2021 and petitioner’s returns were so filed, denial was not justified and petitioner was entitled to claim ITC benefit if otherwise eligible
Madras High Court
Where assessee faced ex parte assessment for alleged excess ITC based on mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, had paid differential ITC pre-order and attributed non-response to a lapse by a part-time accountant, equitable grounds required that assessee be given opportunity to present submissions with supporting documents, thus, impugned assessment order was to be set aside for fresh consideration with effective hearing