High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Madras, newest first.
85 rulings
Madras High Court
Where petitioner filed March 2019 return on 30.10.2019 and was denied ITC due to limitation, retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) by Act 15 of 2024, along with Notification 17/2024-CT and Circular 237/31/2024, extended ITC time limit for FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 up to 30.11.2021, rendering limitation-based disallowance unsustainable
Madras High Court
Where SEZ unit exported information technology services on payment of IGST after utilising ITC distributed through ISD mechanism, it was held entitled to claim refund under zero-rated supply provisions as proviso restricting refund to supplier applied only to direct supplies to SEZ and petitioner qualified for zero-rated refund route
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 challenged cancellation of GST registration and both sides agreed issue was covered by Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. Appellate Deputy (Madras), cancellation was set aside and registration directed to be restored subject to petitioner filing all pending pre-cancellation returns and making related payments in cash, with ITC adjustment not permitted unless approved by department and restoration effective upon compliance
Madras High Court
Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A was available where proceedings had been initiated under section 73 even in respect of self assessed tax arising from belated filing of GSTR 3B, non obstante clause in section 75(12) permitting direct recovery under section 79 could not exclude such cases from amnesty scheme once liability was determined under section 73 GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A having been accepted and Form GST SPL 05 issued, authorities could not subsequently declare such approval void by invoking section 161 except in contingencies specifically contemplated under Rule 164(16) or 164(17) GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being governed by mandatory timelines under Rule 164, belated filing of application or payment beyond prescribed period could not be condoned on basis of substantial compliance, and rejection of waiver claim was justified GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being subject to mandatory filing timelines under Rule 164, belated or non filing of application on plea of lack of knowledge of section 73 order could not be condoned, and writ petitions were liable to be dismissed
Madras High Court
Where SCN underlying assessment and penalty proceedings was issued by DGGI and adjudication was carried out by officer not listed in Table 5 of Notification No. 2/2022-Central Tax, there was prima facie lack of jurisdiction, making out a case for interim stay of impugned orders
Madras High Court
Where petitioner’s bank account was provisionally attached under Section 83 and remained frozen beyond statutory one-year period, as limitation in Section 83(2) requires cessation of such attachment after one year, continued freezing was impermissible and attachment was set aside, allowing petitioner to operate account
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 petitioner’s registration was cancelled and revived later, claim for ITC on pending returns was denied as entitlement under section 16(6) is conditional upon ITC not being barred by section 16(4) on date of cancellation, and since petitioner was time-barred under section 16(4) at cancellation, subsequent claim was not permissible
Madras High Court
Purchase tax under TNGST and TNVAT was leviable on sand, gravel and jelly purchased from unregistered dealers and used in works contracts; Constitution Bench precedent affirmed such levy, and orders of first appellate authority and Tribunal annulling purchase tax were perverse and set aside, restoring assessments. TNGST: Purchase tax under Section 7-A under TN General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was validly leviable on materials purchased from unregistered dealers for works contracts; Section 7-A operated independently of Section 3-B, which governed taxable turnover of transfer of property, and non obstante clause did not exclude purchase tax on goods not previously tax-suffered. VAT: Purchase tax and penalty were validly leviable on materials purchased from unregistered dealers and used in works contracts; upon upholding purchase-tax liability, returns would become incorrect and incomplete, attracting statutory penalties under both TNGST and TNVAT enactments, and assessee’s challenge was to be dismissed
Madras High Court
Where registered person failed to file annual return for period in dispute and was levied late fee, mere non- issuance of notice in Form GSTR-3A or non-adherence to SOP Circular did not nullify statutory obligation to file returns within prescribed schedule, thus imposition of late fee for non-filing of return was sustained and dismissal of writ appeal was upheld
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 company failed to pay self-assessed liability reported in GSTR-1 and went into liquidation, and recovery from company was not possible, joint and several liability was fastened on directors during default unless they proved absence of negligence; so attachment of director’s bank account by garnishee process for recovery of company dues was justified and did not warrant interference at this stage. GST: Where partnership firm’s bank accounts were attached to recover arrears of a company under director liability because a partner was also director of defaulting company at relevant period, subsequent changes in partnership were irrelevant and close family ties among promoters and partners justified action, so firm’s challenge to garnishee communications was not sustainable and writ was dismissed GST: Where one company's bank account was attached for recovery of another company's arrears, given common promoters and directorship swaps among family members across entities and evidence suggesting incorporation of petitioner aimed at evasion, lifting of corporate veil was warranted and interference with garnishee attachment was unwarranted, leading to dismissal of writ petitions
Madras High Court
Where petitioner challenged order imposing penalty for non-maintenance of records relying on section 47 that penalty under Section 122 could not be imposed after levying late fee thereunder, since section 47 pertains to belated filing of returns and section 122 prescribes penalty in respect of several matters including non- maintenance of books of accounts, there was no infirmity in order warranting interference and writ petition was to be dismissed
Madras High Court
Where assessee's registration was cancelled and best judgment assessment determined tax liability for June 2022 due to non-filing of return, but assessee later filed GSTR-3B for that period disclosing tax paid in excess of assessed liability; fresh consideration of assessment was warranted