High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Madras, newest first.
48 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where petitioner’s refund claims for were rejected due to portal glitches and lack of manual redressal, refund statutorily recognized could not be denied on such technical grounds, and respondent was required to accept physical documents, process claims manually, and issue refund orders in accordance with statutory entitlements
Madras High Court
Where assessee manufacturing combed cotton yarn used certain inputs taxable at higher rates than output and claimed refund of accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure, rejection of refund on ground that principal input matched output rate was improper since statute allows refund if any input attracts higher GST, circular restricting such refund was unconstitutional and refund with interest was directed
Madras High Court
Where petitioner’s application for fresh registration was rejected solely for non- filing of returns up to cancellation date after statutory due date for doing so had expired and no extension notification was issued, petitioner could not be compelled to do an impossible act, making rejection unsustainable and authorities were directed to reconsider subject to fulfillment of remaining registration conditions
Madras High Court
Where SCN identified excess ITC claim due to mismatch in returns and did not allege fraud or suppression, proceeding should be under section 73, not section 74, as section 74's ingredients were absent, making assessment order unsustainable and requiring remand for a fresh decision under proper section with liberty for statutory reliefs
Madras High Court
Where registered person inadvertently paid tax under IGST instead of splitting payment into CGST and SGST, and entire tax liability stood discharged within prescribed period, IGST paid was to be appropriated towards correct heads without requirement of fresh payment and re-refund, as statutory refund scheme applies only to inter-State to intra-State reclassification and not mere wrong-head allocation
Madras High Court
Where for FY 2024-25 assessee was issued SCN invoking Section 74 after its omission and introduction of Section 74-A, direction for fresh notice under Section 74-A and due procedure was correct, but initial notice was not without jurisdiction as authority existed, only wrong provision was cited, thus proceedings to continue under correct provision with clarification
Madras High Court
Where registered purchaser claimed ITC on supplies from identified supplier and produced bank statements, invoices, e-way bills, ledgers and GSTR-2A/2B in response to SCN issued under Section 73, reversal of ITC solely due to supplier's registration cancellation without considering produced documents or affording opportunity for additional evidence could not be sustained and order was set aside for fresh adjudication
Madras High Court
Refund of IGST on zero-rated exports could not be rejected solely on basis of Board Circular No. 37/2018, which was struck down as inconsistent with statutory provisions and Rules; rejection without examining claim under governing law was unsustainable, and matter was remanded for re-adjudication
Madras High Court
Where GST registration was cancelled and petitioner sought revival citing precedent in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. Appellate Deputy 515 (Madras), impugned cancellation order was to be set aside and writ petition was to be allowed on identical terms
Madras High Court
Where assessee discharged entire tax liability within statutory time but part of payment was mistakenly remitted under IGST head with no such liability, substantial compliance for waiver existed since full payment as per notice was made and rejection solely due to wrong head payment was unsustainable; matter required reconsideration with opportunity to rectify head-wise payment
Madras High Court
Where petitioner’s belated input tax credit was disallowed solely for non-filing of a reply to SCN, subsequent statutory amendment enabled condonation of ITC delay with retrospective effect, requiring reconsideration of demand, thus petitioner could now establish receipt of supplies and eligibility, and delay by itself did not bar entitlement if compliance conditions were met
Madras High Court
Where assessee sought rectification of clerical and arithmetical errors in GSTR-1 for early GST periods to enable correct flow of input tax credit to customers, rectification could not be denied merely on ground of delay or absence of portal functionality and corrected returns were required to be permitted
Madras High Court
Where both statutory late fee and general penalty were imposed for same delayed filing of returns, once specific late fee was prescribed and levied under law, imposition of general penalty for identical default was unwarranted and penalty orders were to be set aside while late fee remained intact
Madras High Court
GST notifications under Sections 9 and 11 must conform to GST Council recommendations; addition of phrase “enforceable right in court of law” for taxing unregistered pulse brands exceeded Council’s 21st meeting recommendation and was held ultra vires, violating cooperative federalism. GST: GST Council has power only to recommend under Article 279A and lacks any express or implied power of ratification; purported ratification in 22nd meeting could not validate notifications levying tax issued beyond its recommendations, as ratification cannot cure an act which is void ab initio
Madras High Court
Where ITC was denied solely because supplier’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled though supplier was registered when supplies occurred and most transactions predated cancellation order, rejection of ITC on this sole ground without examining genuineness of supplies was unsustainable and matter required reconsideration with reasonable opportunity to petitioner
Madras High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit but filed returns belatedly and sole reason for denial was delayed filing, since statutory amendment extended time limit and petitioner filed within such extended period, rejection based solely on delay was not tenable and impugned order of denial was unsustainable
Madras High Court
Where statute prescribed late fee for delayed annual return, separate general penalty for same default was impermissible; late fee for 995-day delay was to be upheld, but penalty component was to be set aside as it would result in duplication of statutory consequence
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 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 SEZ unit's supplies and services for authorised operations were treated as not zero-rated due to non-production of Letter of Undertaking and SEZ Certificate, but required documents were offered for verification during proceedings, adjudication orders were set aside and matter remanded to enable submission and verification of such documents as per Section 16 of IGST Act