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
GSTAT Lucknow
Where goods in transit were detained on suspicion of reuse of invoices and e- way bills based solely on vehicle movement data and photographs, but there was no discrepancy in goods or documents and no cogent evidence of document reuse or evasion, mere suspicion could not justify detention or penalty and burden of proof remained on revenue, thus tax and penalty were not sustainable
Delhi High Court
Where DGGI issued composite show-cause notice to 146 noticees in proceedings relating to alleged IGST refund and ITC fraud, Notification No. 2/2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2022 was held to validly confer pan-India jurisdiction on officers for DGGI SCNs and circular allocating competent adjudicating officer was held to merely regulate allocation without conferring jurisdiction, therefore jurisdictional challenge was to be rejected GST: Where composite SCN arising from DGGI investigation was assigned to common adjudicating authority based on highest amount of demand criterion, such criterion was held objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable with rational nexus to single and consistent adjudication of one cause, and its application did not involve impermissible sub-delegation or enlargement of jurisdiction GST: Where Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi acting as common adjudicating authority passed order against Haryana-registered petitioners, appellate forum was held to lie before Commissioner (Appeals) of Commissionerate where common adjudicating authority was posted as already notified under Table III of Notification No. 2/2017 and clarificatory circular merely reiterated said position
GSTAT Ernakulam
Where appellant's goods and conveyance were detained for expired e-way bills and notice proposing penalty was issued but final order confirming demand was passed 445 days later, contravening statutory seven-day period, such a delay rendered penalty order void ab initio and a nullity in law, requiring consequential relief to appellant
Delhi High Court
Where infrastructure company held registrations in multiple States administratively assigned to State authorities but was investigated by DGGI Kanpur for alleged cross-State invoice chains and issued a common SCN, such investigation and issuance by DGGI were valid as DGGI officers legally possess all-India powers irrespective of tax administrative allocation, hence jurisdictional objection was not to be sustained GST: Where petitioner challenged jurisdiction of Additional or Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi North to adjudicate common SCN citing later notifications, since prior notification and circular empowered Delhi North to adjudicate based on highest tax demand in SCN falling within Delhi, and revised allocation still mapped relevant noticee to Delhi North, jurisdictional objection to allocation was to be rejected
Karnataka High Court
Where supplier LLP's ITC was blocked on GST portal without prior intimation or pre-decisional hearing and basis for blocking was only an advisory communication pending verification, mechanical blocking without affording hearing was unjustified, thus requiring ITC to be unblocked forthwith and permitting fresh proceedings only after due notice and opportunity of hearing to assessee
Kerala High Court
Where authorities issued a composite show cause notice covering multiple assessment years and tax periods by combining distinct adjudications into one proceeding, such composite notice lacked legal sanction as per binding precedents and was therefore quashed, with liberty granted to issue separate notices for each assessment year or period
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where appellant, facing ITC mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, admitted oversight and paid tax with interest before SCN, but was issued SCN invoking Section 74 for suppression and penalized 100 percent, such invocation was unsustainable since no fraud, mis-statement or deliberate suppression was established and case fell under Section 73, rendering Section 74 action and penalty invalid
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where an assessee made pre-SCN payment of tax and interest for excess ITC and irregular TRAN-1 credit found in audit and there was no evidence of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression with intent, penalty under fraud provisions was not sustainable as mere audit detection does not amount to suppression, and voluntary payment warranted immunity from penalty under general provisions
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed monthly return for March 2019 on 23.10.2019 and claimed input tax credit, since return was within cutoff of Section 16(5), denial based on Section 16(4) limitation was unsustainable, requiring reconsideration and grant of input tax credit for March 2019 if otherwise eligible
Rajasthan High Court
Where real estate developer received show cause notice and order uploaded on portal without any digital or physical signature and recovery initiated, such unsigned documents lacked statutory authentication under Rule 26(3) and constituted a jurisdictional defect, rendering SCN, order, recovery notice and consequent bank attachment invalid and liable to be quashed
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee's refund of tax paid on export of services was rejected under Rule 96, since Rule 96(10) had been omitted without any saving or sunset clause, ongoing restriction could not be maintained and refund could not be denied in view of Supreme Court's decision that proceedings under an omitted rule cannot continue in absence of any saving provision
Calcutta High Court
Where electrical line repair and maintenance services had been completed in 2015 before introduction of GST, subsequent approval and billing in 2019 could not alter date of supply or bring completed services within GST regime, consequently payment withheld for want of GST registration was directed to be released with interest after deducting tax, if any, applicable under pre-GST regime
GSTAT Lucknow
Where summary of proposed demand (DRC-01) was uploaded to appellant account without issuance of statutory show cause notice to correct taxable person, and summary was accompanied by SCN addressed to different taxpayer, failure to issue SCN and provide opportunity rendered demand proceedings void ab initio and entire assessment with tax, interest and penalty was set aside. GST: Where ITC of CGST and SGST was denied solely due to GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch without verifying possession of invoices, receipt of supplies or supplier tax payment as required by Section 16 and relevant Circular, and SCN was wrongly issued, such denial was unsustainable as non-reflection in GSTR-2A alone could not defeat ITC claim
GSTAT Lucknow
Where assessee claimed ITC in excess of amounts reflected in GSTR-2A for CGST and SGST but short-claimed IGST compared to GSTR-2A, IGST credit was rightfully permitted, however reversal of excess CGST and SGST was rightly sustained due to lack of supporting evidence, thus, appellate findings were to be upheld as no material rebutted these conclusions GST: Where ITC reversal was confirmed for CGST and SGST due to ITC mismatch in non-fraud proceedings, and first appellate authority reduced interest and penalty relying on record, appellant did not produce any new facts or evidence, thus levy and quantification of interest and penalty as directed in first appeal was to be sustained and appeal was to be dismissed
Delhi High Court
Where penalty-only SCNs were issued prior to introduction of pre-deposit requirement for appeals, such pre-deposit condition could not apply retrospectively and GSTAT must entertain appeals in penalty-only cases arising from such SCNs without insisting on pre-deposit, ensuring appellate right was unaffected by whether first or second appeal was involved
Gauhati High Court
Where GST registration of transport service provider was cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns and period for seeking revocation had expired, cancellation order was to be set aside and registration was to be restored subject to filing all pending returns within 30 days and petitioner remained liable for tax, interest, penalty and late fees
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner filed appeal against adjudication order after delay due to serious illness of business manager, having paid mandatory pre-deposit and established sufficient cause, dismissal on limitation ground without considering circumstances was hyper-technical and not justified, thus, delay deserved to be condoned and appeal was to be restored for merit-based hearing
Gauhati High Court
Where authorities seized cash, along with other items, during search under section 67 but cash did not fall within permissible articles for seizure, such action was illegal and, although cash was refunded before adjudication, petitioner was entitled to interest for period of illegal withholding and respondent authorities were required to compute and pay such interest. GST: Where search under section 67 resulted in seizure of mobile phones, pen drives and a bank card, and since SCN was already issued, continued retention of seized goods was unwarranted and Investigating Officer was required to arrange immediate release of said items to petitioner
Gauhati High Court
Where registration of petitioner engaged in works contract services was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months during 2023-25 amid acute financial hardship, cancellation was set aside restoring registration, subject to filing all pending returns within 30 days, with liability for applicable tax, penalty, interest and late fees maintained from date of order
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner's registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns and appeal for restoration was dismissed as time barred, writ relief was allowed by setting aside cancellation on condition that all pending returns be filed within 30 days with requisite payments, and limitation for demand under Sections 73(10)/74(10) to run from date of present order except for period governed by Section 44