Madras High Court
For revenue
High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Madras, newest first.
7 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where petitioner engaged in sale of rock boulders was found to have under-declared turnover when compared to high seigniorage fees during relevant periods, and escaped turnover was estimated using National Standard Method, issuance of notice and extended limitation under Section 74 was justified based on prima facie material, rendering challenge to limitation and procedure meritless
Madras High Court
Where assessee availed and utilized excess ITC over GSTR-2A figures and failed to pay reverse charge tax on foreign agency commissions, such acts constituted wrongful availment and suppression with intent to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation under Section 74 GST: Orders passed in November 2024 under Section 73 for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 were within limitation, as statutory extensions governed computation of time, and limitation issue stood concluded by binding precedent
Madras High Court
Where assessees challenged demands raised invoking extended-period on ground that there was lack of foundational facts in show cause notices, in view of fact that prior communications like scrutiny, audit or inspection had already conveyed requisite reasons and facts, invocation of extended-period was valid; absence of reasons in show cause notice alone was not fatal if jurisdictional facts were discernible from earlier communications or on record, subject to prima facie satisfaction under section 74. GST: Where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression is not established, proceedings initiated under Section 74 need not fail but may be converted into Section 73 proceedings; such conversion preserves valid tax demands while excluding consequences dependent on extended-period ingredients. GST: Where central authorities issued consolidated show cause notices spanning multiple years and parties disputed permissibility of such composite notices, consolidated SCNs covering multiple periods were deemed valid, as normal and extended-period demands were not tax-period specific and statute did not prohibit common SCNs for multiple periods GST: Where assessee, on being inspected for multiple years and issued DRC-01A and DRC-01 alleging fraud, non-cooperation, documentation lapses and failures to provide financials, challenged show cause notices as pre-determined, since GST scheme allows communication of reasons throughout proceedings and detailed SCN was intended to enable assessee for rebuttal, writ challenge was not maintainable and merits had to be adjudicated in their own course.…
Madras High Court
Where assessee operated two registrations and department inspection revealed circular transactions and fictitious ITC on non-supplies, such findings prima facie justified invoking extended limitation period under GST for both registrations and challenge to such invocation was untenable as all procedural requirements for Erode registration were duly followed as threshold for invoking extended period under GST regime is lower than previous indirect tax laws GST: Where post-remand DRC-07 orders for Gobichettipalayam were passed without prior DRC-01 show cause notice, such orders were to be set aside for fresh adjudication with opportunity and natural justice, while Erode proceedings that followed proper sequence with DRC-01A and DRC-01 reply suffered no procedural infirmity and were not to be interfered
Madras High Court
Where SCNs alleging tax or ITC fraud for periods 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 were issued in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 74 prior to expiry of statutory limitation and after issuance of DRC-01A intimation, challenge on limitation was untenable as statutory timelines were complied with, and SCNs therefore survived. GST: Where petitioner failed to reply to DRC-01A in respect of 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020 leading to non-cooperation and suppression under Explanation-2, invocation of Section 74 machinery was justified and, with disputed facts involved, remedy lay in adjudication by replying to SCNs rather than writ, so writ petitions seeking quash were not maintainable
Madras High Court
Where petitioner company was merged and after NCLT's approval, unutilized ITC and liabilities were transferred and department parallelly initiated audit-based and scrutiny-based proceedings for same period, audit and scrutiny notices could be issued separately as each arose from distinct processes; suppression of facts being disclosed as was required for invoking section 74, limitation period would be extended and, thus, SCNs could not be challenged filing writ petitions
Madras High Court
Where registered persons challenged orders assessing liability for fraudulent ITC availed based on a key witness's statement but were denied cross-examination, right to cross-examination was not absolute since allegations pertained to bogus ITC and could be rebutted by documentary evidence, thus, mere denial of cross- examination did not vitiate adjudication, making statutory appeal appropriate remedy