Calcutta High Court
For assessee
High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Calcutta, newest first.
4 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
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