Madras High Court
For assesseeRemanded
High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Madras, newest first.
20 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where assessment order and DRC-7 confirmed tax demand exceeding SCN and failed to account for IGST already belatedly paid via GSTR-3B with DRC-7 ignoring such appropriation, demand confirmation was beyond SCN scope and, subject to partial remittance by petitioner, assessment order was set aside for reconsideration post issue of fresh SCN. GST: Where petitioner sought cancellation of GST registration due to business discontinuation and authorities rejected application solely for outstanding tax demand, discontinuation constitutes a valid statutory ground for cancellation and outstanding dues can be recovered post-cancellation, so rejection solely on demand grounds was untenable and authorities must reconsider cancellation as per law
Madras High Court
Where adjudication order confirmed tax, interest and penalty, and assessee paid tax and interest leaving only penalty unpaid, DRC-07 was issued solely for penalty, rejection of appeal for non-payment of 10 percent pre-deposit of penalty was unsustainable as proviso to Section 107(6) applies only where order demands penalty without any tax, thus appeal was to be restored for adjudication on merits
Madras High Court
Where search authorization issued in respect of petitioner partnership firm under Section 67(2) lacked DIN with only a generic assertion of technical difficulty and no contemporaneous record, and DIN was neither timely generated nor communicated to noticee, mandatory requirements of DIN display, contemporaneous recording of exception, regularization, and sharing with noticee were breached, rendering authorization non-compliant; authorities to initiate fresh proceeding
Madras High Court
Where petitioner with registrations in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra received a combined section 73 order and sought waiver of interest or penalty via single SPL-02 under section 128A(1)(b) after tax payment, proper officer could not decline jurisdiction for Maharashtra alone as same officer issued combined order and no statutory basis exists to split jurisdiction, requiring reconsideration
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 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 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 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 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 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
Madras High Court
Where petitioner disclosed outward supplies in GSTR-1 for certain periods but failed to discharge corresponding output tax through GSTR-3B on time, mere non-receipt of customer payments or lack of intent to evade tax could not alter statutory liability, but in light of section 128A and GST Council deliberations, such short payments warranted reconsideration under section 73 rather than section 74, hence matter required fresh decision accordingly
Madras High Court
Where penalty equals to 100 percent of tax was imposed under Section 74 for alleged fraud though penalty only of 50 percent of tax under Section 74A was statutorily leviable, as provisions invoked had led to a higher penalty and materially altered liability, such error was not curable as a mere misquotation; impugned penalty order was to be quashed and fresh proceedings was to be initiated under correct provision
Madras High Court
Where petitioner purchased goods under invoices containing vehicle numbers from a registered supplier who filed returns and paid tax, denial of input tax credit solely due to absence of lorry receipts and weighment slips without enquiry into genuineness of supply was unsustainable, thus order confirming denial on that basis was set aside and required reconsideration
Madras High Court
Where DGGI issued SCN and Assistant Commissioner adjudicated and passed OIO confirming proposals, since power to pass orders on DGGI notices was vested only in Additional or Joint Commissioner by Notification 02/2022-CT, OIO passed by Assistant Commissioner suffered procedural irregularity and same was to be was quashed; matter to be decided by competent authority as per prevailing notifications