Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
134 rulings found
Allahabad High Court
Where petitioner's registration had been cancelled and no business was carried on thereafter, uploading show cause notice solely on GST portal post-cancellation did not constitute valid service, breaching principles of natural justice, as petitioner was under no obligation to check portal and alternative service modes were required, resulting in demand order being quashed
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
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered manufacturer of bakery and confectionery products was subjected to a single composite assessment order for multiple tax periods from 2019 to 2022, issuance of a composite order covering more than one tax period was found impermissible, rendering such order invalid and liable to be set aside, and writ petition challenging composite order was allowed
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
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
Gauhati High Court
Where order imposing tax, interest and penalty for FY 2018-19 under Assam GST Act was passed on 30.04.2024 without any State notification extending limitation under Section 168A for said year, statutory period for passing order had expired on 31.12.2023, thus order was time-barred and unsustainable in law and was set aside. GST: Where tax, interest and penalty were imposed under an order that failed to follow Section 75(6) format and was passed without providing assessee opportunity of hearing as prescribed by Section 75(4), breach of statutory procedure vitiated adjudication and such impugned order could not be sustained in law and was set aside
Allahabad High Court
Where registered person's registration was cancelled and show cause notice for demand was served solely by uploading on GST portal, such service was inadequate as petitioner was no longer obligated to check portal, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice and quashing of demand order, with liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law
Kerala High Court
Where respondents issued a single composite show cause notice and summary covering multiple financial years, such composite notice was impermissible warranting quashing of consolidated notice and summary, with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year and exclusion of limitation period for reinitiation from issuance of composite notice till receipt of judgment copy
Madras High Court
Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A was available where proceedings had been initiated under section 73 even in respect of self assessed tax arising from belated filing of GSTR 3B, non obstante clause in section 75(12) permitting direct recovery under section 79 could not exclude such cases from amnesty scheme once liability was determined under section 73 GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A having been accepted and Form GST SPL 05 issued, authorities could not subsequently declare such approval void by invoking section 161 except in contingencies specifically contemplated under Rule 164(16) or 164(17) GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being governed by mandatory timelines under Rule 164, belated filing of application or payment beyond prescribed period could not be condoned on basis of substantial compliance, and rejection of waiver claim was justified GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being subject to mandatory filing timelines under Rule 164, belated or non filing of application on plea of lack of knowledge of section 73 order could not be condoned, and writ petitions were liable to be dismissed
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
Calcutta High Court
Where pre-SCN, SCN, reminders and adjudication order were only uploaded under 'Additional notices and orders' tab and not in main 'Notices/Orders' tab, and personal hearing was fixed before expiry of reply period, communication was not legally adequate and denial of effective hearing violated principles of natural justice, thus, ex parte adjudication order was to be set aside and fresh order was to passed after affording hearing opportunity
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where proceedings were initiated under sections 73 and 74 of CGST, PGST and HGST for credits availed under erstwhile Haryana VAT Act, such VAT-era credits were held outside purview of GST adjudication and determination provisions, making actions under sections 73/74 without jurisdiction, and proceedings could not be sustained against petitioners
Orissa High Court
Where proceedings under section 73 were initiated and concluded against a deceased proprietor despite departmental knowledge of death and registration amendment, and legal heir participated in proceedings, such actions were without jurisdiction and non est, since section 93 mandates liability proceedings against legal representative, thus all corresponding SCNs and orders stood quashed with liberty to initiate proper proceedings against legal heir
Calcutta High Court
Where SCN proposing ITC reversal was issued for discrepancies flagged during relevant period but failed to specify hearing details and was uploaded under 'Additional notices and orders' tab instead of proper portal mode, ex parte order violated principles of natural justice, requiring order to be set aside and matter reconsidered after providing proper hearing opportunity
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner furnished return for March 2019 on 13.12.2019, within statutory cut-off date of 30.11.2021, entitlement to input tax credit for said period stood preserved and denial based solely on purported delay invoking limitation was unsustainable, requiring reassessment of claim in light of statutory cut-off under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Karnataka High Court
DRC-13 garnishee notices could not be issued against a private limited company, distinct from deceased’s proprietary concern, for recovery of latter’s GST dues; as adjudication orders also failed to consider post-death liability, DRC-13 notices, orders and DRC-07 summaries were quashed, with proceedings restored for fresh decision. GST: GST adjudication orders were quashed where, despite sole proprietor’s death being intimated, authorities failed to examine applicability of Section 93(1)(a)/(b) before proceeding against alleged legal heirs; objection to multiple SCNs for same period was left open for consideration after detailed replies, with proceedings restored for fresh decision
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