Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
12 rulings found
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
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
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner, a registered taxpayer, filed returns for April 2018 to March 2019 within the extended cut-off dates prescribed under statutory extension by Section 168A of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, benefit of input tax credit cannot be denied by invoking Section 16(4) limitation, as all returns were within the prescribed extended period
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed return for March 2020 on 17.11.2020 and challenged denial of input tax credit on ground of limitation, since Section 16(5) allowed entitlement where return was submitted before 30.11.2021, rejection of input tax credit as time-barred under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and reconsideration was warranted if otherwise eligible
Calcutta High Court
Limitation period applies to passing of adjudication order, not to its service; an adjudication order digitally signed within limitation period remains valid even if uploaded and served beyond limitation period and said order would become enforceable only upon such service
Kerala High Court
Where a dealer received a composite notice and order-in-original for multiple years under CGST/KGST, such composite proceedings were unsustainable as per settled law, so the impugned order, notice, and summary were quashed and authorities allowed to issue fresh year-wise notices, with benefit of Section 16(5) if returns filed by 30.11.2021 and limitation period suitably adjusted. GST: Where petitioner was denied ITC for certain months on limitation grounds though returns were furnished by 30.11.2021 and Section 16(5) benefit was claimed, order and related notices were quashed and respondents were to reconsider eligibility for ITC for each year, granting Section 16(5) benefit if timely filing is verified, excluding specified period for limitation computation
Tripura High Court
Where department issued Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice and Order-in- Original for 2017-18 after expiry of five-year period from due date of furnishing annual return and without any notification extending limitation under Section 74 or Section 168A, such proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to law. GST: Where SGST authorities had already issued and dropped proceedings with respect to excess ITC availed for certain years and identical subject matter was included in respondent’s SCN and OIO, statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) against parallel proceedings applied, making such notices and orders without jurisdiction to that extent. GST: Bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies only where CGST and SGST proceedings involve identical subject matter; where SGST proceedings concerned GSTR- 1B/GSTR-3B mismatch and CGST proceedings related to short payment of tax, parallel CGST action was valid
Karnataka High Court
Where writ petitioner, a works contractor, sought directions to file returns or amended returns with relaxed penalty, interest or limitation based on reimbursement clause in contract, such contractual entitlement could not override mandatory GST statutory scheme, and no directions could be issued to relax statutory interest, penalty or limitation for filing returns or revised returns, thus impugned relief granted to petitioner by Single Judge was unsustainable GST: Where works contractor received contract pre-GST but invoices post- 01.07.2017 included GST at 12 percent and post-audit demand was raised at 18 percent, direction for reimbursement of GST liability including interest and penalty was enforceable only against employer and not against tax authorities or State, thus, impugned order was to be set aside to that extent
Madras High Court
Where demand arising from mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B was challenged as time barred on ground that proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 73 within stipulated time, benefit of exclusion of limitation during Covid-19 period applied and proceedings could not be held barred by limitation
Telangana High Court
Where proper officer issued tax demand order for April 2019 to March 2020 after the expiry of extended limitation on 31.08.2024, delay in order upload was a jurisdictional defect not cured by administrative workload or minor revenue loss, and as limitation affected authority to tax, both order- in-original and order-in-appeal were unsustainable and set aside
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 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