Calcutta High Court
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.
10 rulings found
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged reversal of input tax credit for delayed return filing and subsequently filed rectification application after retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) and 16(6) from 1 July 2017, with return filed within extended period and no revenue dispute on timing, rejection of appeal ignoring retrospective extension and rectification was perverse and orders were set aside
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 Kolkata
Input tax credit in respect of MEIS duty scrips could not be excluded from aggregate value of exempt supplies for period prior to Notification No 14 of 2022 as amendment to Rule 43 excluding value of duty credit scrips was intended to operate prospectively and ITC being concessional in nature could not be claimed retrospectively as vested right GST: Where assessee had disclosed availment of ITC on outward supply of MEIS duty credit scrips in GSTR-3B and department was aware of such transactions, there was no concealment of facts or intention to evade tax, and therefore fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression could not be alleged merely because assessee claimed retrospective benefit of amendment to Rule 43, making invocation of section 74(1) unsustainable and requiring fresh determination of tax liability
GSTAT Thane
Where e-commerce operator transitioned pre-GST CENVAT and VAT credits to GST through TRAN-1 and no proceedings challenging eligibility of such credits were initiated or pending under erstwhile laws, initiation of recovery and denial of transitional credit solely at transition stage under GST Acts was beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable, as transitional provisions did not authorize fresh proceedings for admissibility under repealed laws. GST: Where appellant transitioned undisputed CENVAT credit via TRAN-1, authorities would be barred from reassessing correctness of erstwhile credits invoking transitional provisions, as invoice-level matching was futile for closing balances and ancillary discrepancies like mismatch of address or absence of description could not defeat transition; denial of transitioned input tax credit was unsustainable. GST: Where appellant transitioned Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) credit via TRAN-1 but later on they had to reverse it under protest being doubted by Department, denial of transition based on retrospective amendment and departmental circular was not sustainable since no notification had operationalised its exclusion and precedent of jurisdictional High Court as well as independent statutory reading supported transition, thus, making appellant's transition of KKC in order. GST: Where assessee transitioned CENVAT credit and VAT ITC balance on stock-in- trade as of 30.06.2017 and provided all requisite details without any specific objections or contrary evidence from revenue, generic allegations of missing documents could not justify denial in absence of any specific finding or material against assessee's claim.…
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
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
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
ITC on works contracts and construction of immovable property used for renting is blocked under Section 17(5)(d); rented building being not “plant or machinery,” ITC claimed on such construction was rightly denied GST: Prior intimation to department, without statutory approval, does not preclude invocation of extended limitation; where blocked ITC was availed beyond prescribed time and without concurrence, extended period and equal penalty for suppression were rightly invoked despite subsequent reversal of credit. GST : Joint assessment proceedings for multiple tax periods justified; common show cause notice issued for multiple tax periods cannot be challenged
Gauhati High Court
Where purchaser trading in scrap batteries bought goods from registered suppliers, paid GST through banking channels, filed GST returns, and availed input tax credit, denial of ITC solely on ground of supplier's default in depositing tax was unjustified in absence of collusion or lack of bona fides, and remedy lay against defaulting supplier, thus impugned orders were set aside
Gauhati High Court
Where scrap battery trader purchased goods from registered suppliers, paid price plus GST via bank and claimed ITC with proper invoices and returns, ITC could not be denied solely due to supplier's non-payment of GST in absence of wrongdoing or collusion by purchaser, remedy for non-payment by supplier lay against supplier, not purchasing dealer