GSTAT Raipur
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.
2 rulings found
GSTAT Raipur
Where scrutiny of e-way bills and subsequent proceedings led to disputed liability for two invoices, and Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief for one invoice (GST-1399) and sustained demand for another (GST-125), with respondent not challenging relief on GST-1399 before Tribunal, only GST-125 remained in controversy, leaving relief on GST-1399 undisturbed and outside Tribunal’s purview. GST: Where assessee, accused of duplicate e-way bill generation and non-payment, specifically requested a personal hearing and submitted defence, adjudicating authority confirmed demand without granting post-reply hearing or giving reasoned decision, such order violated statutory mandate for opportunity of hearing and duty to record reasons, hence original adjudication was vitiated for non-compliance with legal requirements. GST: Where dispute survived for single invoice with two e-way bills for same vehicle, non-cancellation was admitted and no primary records or evidence were produced to prove asserted system glitch, appellate proceedings could not cure breach of statutory personal hearing at original stage, warranting limited remand for fresh determination after affording statutory hearing and considering primary evidence. GST: Where demand was confirmed on duplicate e-way bills against same invoice with unpaid tax alleged, and cancellation of the second e-way bill was raised in appeal, reference by appellate authority to statutory cancellation mechanism did not introduce a new ground, since existence and non-use of cancellation window was relevant to assess appellant's defence of unintentional duplication.…
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner company paid and reversed ITC under protest pursuant to adjudicating authority's demand, but appellate authority subsequently set aside original order and allowed appeal, refund officer could not reject refund claim on grounds of non-finality or proposed departmental appeal, as appellate order remained operative and binding until stayed or modified, making refund rejection unsustainable GST: Where petitioner, after demand against it was set aside in entirety on appeal, sought refund of amounts paid by filing RFD-01 with supporting documents, refund authority wrongly rejected refund citing lack of explicit refund direction, as statutory principles mandated consequential refund whenever original demand is quashed, requiring refund authority to process claim on merits under refund mechanism without re-examining demand issues GST: Where refund claim was rejected solely because of prospective departmental appeal and capitalization entries when no appeal was pending as on refund date, there was no hearing and no formed Commissioner opinion on adverse impact due to malfeasance or fraud, rejection was unsustainable since statutory prerequisites for withholding refund were not met and subsequent appeal did not cure these deficiencies