Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
670 rulings
Telangana High Court
Where registered taxpayer’s application for revocation of cancelled registration was rejected grounds without application of mind since it only recited that reasons for condonation were incorrect or insufficient without addressing explanation or documents, such rejection order was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted to competent authority for fresh speaking order after due consideration
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioners received consolidated SCNs as also consolidated orders covering multiple years under sections 73/74, such composite notices and orders were valid as statutes do not mandate FY-wise segregation and there was no statutory bar and limitation principles would apply period-wise; and jurisdiction was not defeated absent Article 14 or limitation breach
Madras High Court
Where notices and ex parte orders for ITC mismatch and delayed GSTR-9 were issued in name of deceased individual due to non-intimation of death by legal heir, orders were set aside and matter remitted for fresh decision on merits with pre-deposit, as ex parte adjudication was improper despite extended-period provision being validly invoked in present context. GST: Where demands were raised for 2017-2018 and 2019-2020 by issuing DRC-01A and DRC-01, and limitation periods stood extended due to statutory notifications and Supreme Court’s Covid-19 orders, adjudication under general demand provision remained maintainable even if extended- period proceedings were inapplicable, as law permitted passing of orders under general demand provision in such circumstances. GST: Where assessee died and no intimation of death was given, statutory liability for tax, interest or penalty determined against deceased for ITC mismatch and late fee continued upon legal heir, who was required to discharge such liabilities even if business was discontinued, as legal heir is responsible for dues of deceased under GST law
Madras High Court
Where assessee availed and utilized excess ITC over GSTR-2A figures and failed to pay reverse charge tax on foreign agency commissions, such acts constituted wrongful availment and suppression with intent to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation under Section 74 GST: Orders passed in November 2024 under Section 73 for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 were within limitation, as statutory extensions governed computation of time, and limitation issue stood concluded by binding precedent
Madras High Court
Where audit culminated in show cause notices and single orders-in-original covering multiple assessment years for determination of demands, objection to bunching multiple tax periods in a single proceeding was unsustainable in view of order passed in Chimney Hills Education Society v. Additional Commissioner of
Gauhati High Court
Where partners of construction firm were found to benefit from GST evasion involving undisclosed cash without invoices on transfer of development rights, and retained the benefit with transactions at their instance, penalty under Section 122(1A) was properly imposed on them as persons responsible, since the provision targets natural persons behind violations irrespective of entity structure. GST: Where SCN invoking Section 122(1A) was issued after its enforcement, targeting partners responsible for benefits retained from violations originally punishable under Section 122(1) during prior periods, Section 122(1A) merely identified liable persons without creating new violations, its application was valid for past transactions so long as SCN was issued after Section 122(1A) came into force
Madras High Court
Where SEZ unit's supplies and services for authorised operations were treated as not zero-rated due to non-production of Letter of Undertaking and SEZ Certificate, but required documents were offered for verification during proceedings, adjudication orders were set aside and matter remanded to enable submission and verification of such documents as per Section 16 of IGST Act
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
Madras High Court
Where petitioner disclosed outward supplies in GSTR-1 for certain periods but failed to discharge corresponding output tax through GSTR-3B on time, mere non-receipt of customer payments or lack of intent to evade tax could not alter statutory liability, but in light of section 128A and GST Council deliberations, such short payments warranted reconsideration under section 73 rather than section 74, hence matter required fresh decision accordingly
Madras High Court
Where petitioner initially discharged GST at a lower rate and later paid differential tax after departmental intimation regarding higher tax rate, liability to pay interest for belated tax payment arose under determination and recovery framework, and obligation to pay interest subsisted irrespective of subsequent payment or willingness to pay in instalments, rendering recovery of such interest under determination and recovery provisions fully justified. GST: Where petitioner initially discharged GST at a lower rate and later paid differential tax after departmental intimation regarding higher tax rate, interest on delayed payment remained payable under determination provisions and reference to extended period in DRC-01 and DRC-07 would not invalidate proceedings; matter required reconsideration of petitioner’s reply in light of business nature for a fresh order
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
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner defaulted in GST return filing for over six months leading to registration cancellation and failed to pursue a timely appeal, since there was no allegation of fraud, default occurred due to financial constraints proximate to Covid-19 period, and readiness to clear dues was shown, restoration of registration was to be permitted upon payment of dues and compliance within stipulated time
Madras High Court
Where assessees challenged demands raised invoking extended-period on ground that there was lack of foundational facts in show cause notices, in view of fact that prior communications like scrutiny, audit or inspection had already conveyed requisite reasons and facts, invocation of extended-period was valid; absence of reasons in show cause notice alone was not fatal if jurisdictional facts were discernible from earlier communications or on record, subject to prima facie satisfaction under section 74. GST: Where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression is not established, proceedings initiated under Section 74 need not fail but may be converted into Section 73 proceedings; such conversion preserves valid tax demands while excluding consequences dependent on extended-period ingredients. GST: Where central authorities issued consolidated show cause notices spanning multiple years and parties disputed permissibility of such composite notices, consolidated SCNs covering multiple periods were deemed valid, as normal and extended-period demands were not tax-period specific and statute did not prohibit common SCNs for multiple periods GST: Where assessee, on being inspected for multiple years and issued DRC-01A and DRC-01 alleging fraud, non-cooperation, documentation lapses and failures to provide financials, challenged show cause notices as pre-determined, since GST scheme allows communication of reasons throughout proceedings and detailed SCN was intended to enable assessee for rebuttal, writ challenge was not maintainable and merits had to be adjudicated in their own course.…
Madras High Court
Where assessee operated two registrations and department inspection revealed circular transactions and fictitious ITC on non-supplies, such findings prima facie justified invoking extended limitation period under GST for both registrations and challenge to such invocation was untenable as all procedural requirements for Erode registration were duly followed as threshold for invoking extended period under GST regime is lower than previous indirect tax laws GST: Where post-remand DRC-07 orders for Gobichettipalayam were passed without prior DRC-01 show cause notice, such orders were to be set aside for fresh adjudication with opportunity and natural justice, while Erode proceedings that followed proper sequence with DRC-01A and DRC-01 reply suffered no procedural infirmity and were not to be interfered
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
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
Madras High Court
Where SCNs alleging tax or ITC fraud for periods 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 were issued in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 74 prior to expiry of statutory limitation and after issuance of DRC-01A intimation, challenge on limitation was untenable as statutory timelines were complied with, and SCNs therefore survived. GST: Where petitioner failed to reply to DRC-01A in respect of 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020 leading to non-cooperation and suppression under Explanation-2, invocation of Section 74 machinery was justified and, with disputed facts involved, remedy lay in adjudication by replying to SCNs rather than writ, so writ petitions seeking quash were not maintainable
Madras High Court
Where petitioner company was merged and after NCLT's approval, unutilized ITC and liabilities were transferred and department parallelly initiated audit-based and scrutiny-based proceedings for same period, audit and scrutiny notices could be issued separately as each arose from distinct processes; suppression of facts being disclosed as was required for invoking section 74, limitation period would be extended and, thus, SCNs could not be challenged filing writ petitions
Madras High Court
Where registered manufacturer failed to maintain job-work records or file prescribed Form ITC-04 due to alleged technical issues, and could not prove receipt of goods within timelines, movement was deemed as supply and tax, interest and equal penalty were correctly confirmed, with extended period invocation upheld since exceptions were not attracted and threshold under GST for such invocation was lower GST: Where registered manufacturer sent goods to sister concern for job work but failed to maintain job-work records or file prescribed form, and department treated such transfers as deemed supplies with tax, interest, and penalty, remand for verification was warranted to examine revenue neutrality and onus was on petitioner to establish tax payment by principal or job worker, with adjudication on factual merits to follow