Kerala High Court
For assessee
Topic
Show-cause notices, adjudication orders, limitation and natural justice in demand proceedings.
97 rulings found
Kerala High Court
Where assessees faced tax determination proceedings on the basis of unsigned notices and orders, quashment of those orders barred authorities from curing defects by re-uploading the same orders and required issuance of fresh notices or orders as per law, with earlier directions enabling such re-issuance or barring limitation set aside and liberty to issue new notices/orders expressly retained
Calcutta High Court
Where proceedings under West Bengal GST Act were initiated by issuing Form GST DRC-01 omitting date, time, and venue for personal hearing and marking those as 'not applicable', thus denying petitioner an opportunity of hearing, entire assessment and demands founded on such defective show cause notice were vitiated and required to be set aside, with liberty for fresh proceedings after granting proper hearing
Calcutta High Court
Where an ex parte order under Section 74 was uploaded under a wrong portal tab and thus, escaped assessee’s notice,impugned order was to be set aside and opportunity to contest SCN was granted subject to deposit of Rs. 1 lakh towards disputed tax
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee’s reply to Section 74 SCN was not considered and mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) was not granted, same vitiated DRC-07 assessment; as hearing was required where adverse decision was contemplated, order and consequential proceedings were unsustainable and were to be quashed. GST: Violation of natural justice and failure to grant mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) rendered assessment under Section 74 legally unsustainable; consequently, endorsement rejecting statutory appeal as time-barred could not survive, and assessment with all consequential proceedings was to be set aside
Kerala High Court
Where demand under section 74 and confiscation proceedings under section 130 were founded on witness statements and request for cross examination was rejected on irrelevant grounds, denial of effective opportunity vitiated adjudication and matter was liable to be remanded for fresh proceedings
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where a composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods was passed against a partnership firm providing works contract services to Government departments without issuing period-wise separate orders, such composite order was invalid and set aside, with liberty granted to initiate fresh proceedings through separate notices for each period in accordance with law
Allahabad High Court
Where assessee's registration was cancelled and business discontinued, service of show cause notice solely by uploading on GST portal was invalid since there was no obligation to check portal post-cancellation; thus, such service breached principles of natural justice and demand order was to be quashed
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
Allahabad High Court
Where penalty order imposed amount exceeding what was proposed in show- cause notice, since statute bars confirming liability beyond SCN, such excess imposition suffered from jurisdictional error
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee was subjected to assessment for multiple tax periods and a common assessment order was passed clubbing separate periods under both CGST and APGST, such composite order was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside, requiring fresh proceedings period-wise in accordance with law
Kerala High Court
Where a dealer received a composite notice and order-in-original for multiple years under CGST/KGST, such composite proceedings were unsustainable as per settled law, so the impugned order, notice, and summary were quashed and authorities allowed to issue fresh year-wise notices, with benefit of Section 16(5) if returns filed by 30.11.2021 and limitation period suitably adjusted. GST: Where petitioner was denied ITC for certain months on limitation grounds though returns were furnished by 30.11.2021 and Section 16(5) benefit was claimed, order and related notices were quashed and respondents were to reconsider eligibility for ITC for each year, granting Section 16(5) benefit if timely filing is verified, excluding specified period for limitation computation
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
Kerala High Court
Composite GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years was unsustainable and related demand orders being unsustainable was required to be quashed; department permitted to issue separate fresh year-wise notices
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner bank received a composite show-cause notice and adjudication order clubbing multiple financial years for alleged IGST liability involving fraud, since each financial year is a separate unit for limitation and notices cannot combine multiple years to overcome bar of limitation, such composite notice and order were held illegal and without jurisdiction and were quashed
Tripura High Court
Where department issued Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice and Order-in- Original for 2017-18 after expiry of five-year period from due date of furnishing annual return and without any notification extending limitation under Section 74 or Section 168A, such proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to law. GST: Where SGST authorities had already issued and dropped proceedings with respect to excess ITC availed for certain years and identical subject matter was included in respondent’s SCN and OIO, statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) against parallel proceedings applied, making such notices and orders without jurisdiction to that extent. GST: Bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies only where CGST and SGST proceedings involve identical subject matter; where SGST proceedings concerned GSTR- 1B/GSTR-3B mismatch and CGST proceedings related to short payment of tax, parallel CGST action was valid
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner-airline neither received services nor paid consideration, question whether petitioner-airline was “recipient” of CRS services and liable to IGST required determination; as issue involved jurisdiction of adjudicating authority and warranted deeper examination, writ petition was maintainable despite availability of statutory appeal
Bombay High Court
Where transferor company was dissolved post-amalgamation and all authorities were informed of cessation, issuance of show cause notice and demand order under Section 74 to non-existent transferor was without jurisdiction and void ab initio, as such proceedings cannot be sustained against an entity that ceased to exist following merger and registration cancellation
Gujarat High Court
Where department issued show cause notice and tax order in deceased proprietor's name after cancellation of registration with zero dues, in view of fact that petitioner widow had no business connection, all such proceedings and consequential actions like bank account freezing were void and quashed, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against legal heir if permissible under law