Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
126 rulings found
Gauhati High Court
Where proper officer issued only summary of SCN without serving substantive show cause notice before passing order in original under section 73(9), such determination was unsustainable and order was to be quashed requiring proper officer to issue show cause notice detailing cause of action for initiation of proceedings as mandated under section 73(1)
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner, upon receiving composite SCN alleging discrepancies and seeking personal hearing, was not granted such opportunity before demand order was passed, decision process was vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice and mandatory requirement under section 75(4), thus, impugned order was set aside and personal hearing before a new officer was directed
Kerala High Court
Where taxpayer claimed input tax credit for specific months and filed returns within special cut-off period provided under non-obstante credit provision, denial of credit on ground of general time-limit was invalid since special provision overrode general timeline and entitlement must be reconsidered based only on fulfilment of non-obstante credit criteria if otherwise eligible
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner was served with assessment summary in FORM GST DRC-07 lacking Assessing Officer's signature and department admitted such omission, signature on such assessment order was mandatory and curative provisions could not validate unsigned order, thus impugned DRC-07 was to be set aside solely due to absence of AO signature
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner filed appeal against order-in-original with delay and omitted to disclose pending rectification application due to Chartered Accountant error, omission deprived petitioner of a material ground for delay condonation, thus order dismissing appeal as time-barred was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted to appellate authority for fresh consideration of condonation application and if satisfaction, decide appeal on merits
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was served only through GST portal and unsigned by Assessing Officer, in view of precedent holding signature on assessment order mandatory, such unsigned order suffered from patent irregularities, and hence, to be set aside: assessment was remanded to AO for fresh order after due hearing subject to petitioner depositing 20% of demand amount
Karnataka High Court
Where contractor sought reimbursement of increased tax liability after GST implementation under pre-GST contract with BBMP, but agreement required submission of proof of tax payment and GST law did not require certification by tax authorities, quantification without verification was improper and matter was to be decided after contractor submitted requisite documents to BBMP Commissioner
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner challenged assessment order as unsigned and only portal upload was relied upon as service, absence of assessing officer's signature could not be cured by service provisions or portal-based delivery, thus impugned assessment order was invalid, and writ was entertainable on deposit of 20 percent of disputed tax, necessitating remand for fresh adjudication after hearing
Telangana High Court
Where prior writ order in petitioner’s case remanded assessment for breach of personal hearing mandate and directed adjudication of original SCN after granting hearing and considering reply, issuance of second SCN and fresh order for same year by AO was impermissible as it overreached remand scope, thus impugned order was set aside for adjudication on first SCN only with compliant hearing
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Order-in-Original due to non-issuance of show cause notice which fact was discovered only after garnishee recovery proceedings were initiated, assessee should file statutory appeal
Karnataka High Court
Where cancellation of registrations was based on SCNs issued under Rule 22(1) resting on defective or blank inspection reports, condition precedent for issuing SCN was not met, hence cancellation orders and consequential suspension were TO be quashed and proceedings were to be restored to SCN stage allowing petitioners to respond with relevant documents
Madras High Court
Where ITC was denied solely because supplier’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled though supplier was registered when supplies occurred and most transactions predated cancellation order, rejection of ITC on this sole ground without examining genuineness of supplies was unsustainable and matter required reconsideration with reasonable opportunity to petitioner
Telangana High Court
Where assessee filed rectification application against original order within limitation, appeal was filed within three months of rectification rejection, and all statutory remedies were diligently pursued, dismissal of appeal as time- barred due to technical defects in memo was unjustified, and pragmatic approach called for remand for decision on merits
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee's export of services and refund eligibility were denied solely due to alleged non-furnishing of Letter of Undertaking without examining nature of transactions or actual furnishing of Letter of Undertaking as required under law, both adjudication and appellate orders were to be quashed and matter was to be remanded for fresh consideration regarding jurisdiction and refund entitlement based on Letter of Undertaking
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
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee's GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months, assessee was permitted to seek restoration on compliance with Rule 22(4) by filing pending returns and clearing tax, interest, penalty and late fee dues, with limitation under section 73(10) running from date of order except for FY 2024-25 as per section 44
Madras High Court
Where petitioner failed to respond to requests for information and show cause notices regarding possible non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful ITC, non-response amounted to suppression to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation and initiation of proceedings under Section 74; hence ex parte orders were warranted in absence of substantive reply, but matter remitted for de novo adjudication. GST: Where DRC-01A intimations and notices were issued for tax periods 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 after scrutiny and no replies were filed, ex parte orders confirming proposals were within limitation under Sections 73 and 74, and Appellate Authority could convert to Section 73 proceedings if Section 74 was wrongly invoked, provided proper reply to DRC-01 was available
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 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
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