Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
16 rulings found
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit for March 2019 and filed return on 02.01.2020, since this was within cut-off date of 30.11.2021 prescribed by Section 16(5), denial of input tax credit on ground of limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and order declining credit was quashed for reconsideration under Section 16(5) if otherwise eligible
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed returns claiming Input Tax Credit for June 2018 to March 2019 on dates prior to statutory cut-off of 30.11.2021, denial of ITC solely on ground of belated filing was not justified and petitioner was entitled to ITC subject to other eligibility and order declining ITC on limitation was to be quashed
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where assessee claimed ITC on 2017-18 invoices in 2018-19 which matched legal timeline, and denial was based only on GSTR-2A non-reflection without verifying supplier payment or invoices, such denial was unsustainable because GSTR-2A was merely facilitative and demand could not be sustained without proper invoice-wise verification as per statutory circular GST: Where assessee was proceeded for excess ITC due to GSTR-3B versus GSTR- 2A mismatch and Order-in-Original was passed without granting personal hearing as required when adverse decision was contemplated, absence of such hearing itself vitiated order, rendering it unsustainable in law and necessitating its setting aside GST: Where assessee faced demand for excess ITC based on GSTR-3B and GSTR- 2A mismatch, and proceedings were initiated directly based on audit reference with proper demand notices but without scrutiny notice in ASMT-10, absence of ASMT-10 notice did not invalidate proceedings as demand initiation was independent of return scrutiny, thus, issue was answered against assessee
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee proved possession of invoices, receipt of goods, and payment, denial of input tax credit solely due to supplier's default in GST deposit and non-reflection in GSTR-2A was unsustainable in absence of collusion, and department ought first to proceed against defaulting supplier, making impugned recovery from assessee without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed GST: Where notice invoking section 74 was issued for raising demand in respect of alleged ineligible or excess ITC for 2018-19 solely on bare assertions of fraud or wilful misstatement without particulars, and reply with supporting documents was not addressed, such notice was ex facie time-barred under section 73(10), recourse to extended limitation was without jurisdiction and proceedings were liable to be quashed
GSTAT Lucknow
Where assessee's ITC allocation between IGST, CGST and SGST showed head- wise mismatch but total eligible ITC in electronic credit ledger equaled claimed ITC, such mismatch did not constitute excess ITC and principal demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained in absence of actual excess availment, as clarified by CBIC and supported by Rule 88B
Madras High Court
Where petitioner filed March 2019 return on 30.10.2019 and was denied ITC due to limitation, retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) by Act 15 of 2024, along with Notification 17/2024-CT and Circular 237/31/2024, extended ITC time limit for FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 up to 30.11.2021, rendering limitation-based disallowance unsustainable
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
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
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
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed returns for October 2019 to March 2020 before 30.11.2021 and was denied input tax credit solely on ground of breach of Section 16(4), such denial was unsustainable as Section 16(5) permitted entitlement when returns were timely filed, thus petitioner was entitled to input tax credit for those months
Patna High Court
Where ITC was denied as time-barred but assessee claimed benefit of retrospective amendments and Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST, appropriate remedy was to seek rectification before competent authority under special procedure prescribed in paragraph 3.5 of said Circular
Calcutta High Court
Statutory amendment to Section 16(5) retrospectively extended time;returns filed for 2018-19 before 30 November 2021 was valid and taxpayer could not be denied ITC on ground of delayed return filing GST: Where alleged short payment based on GSTR-1/GSTR-3B mismatch is claimed to have been discharged through DRC-03 and issue requires factual verification, demand cannot be sustained without such verification and matter is liable to be remanded to proper officer for fresh consideration. GST: Where denial of ITC on account of GSTR-2A/GSTR-9 mismatch involves disputed facts, including supplier's insolvency and alleged non-filing of returns, matter requires fresh examination by proper officer and cannot be decided without proper factual verification. GST: Where principal demand is set aside, consequential enhanced penalty cannot survive and issue of penalty is liable to be remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with surviving tax demand
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner faced multiple demands for same period under section 73 and had filed GSTR-3B by 30.11.2021, since retrospective amendment to section 16(5) regularized ITC, demand raised by subsequent order was not sustainable and same was to be quashed, order-in-original required re-adjudication in light of retrospective benefit and verification of return dates
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
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
Madras High Court
Where assessee faced ex parte assessment for alleged excess ITC based on mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, had paid differential ITC pre-order and attributed non-response to a lapse by a part-time accountant, equitable grounds required that assessee be given opportunity to present submissions with supporting documents, thus, impugned assessment order was to be set aside for fresh consideration with effective hearing