Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
670 rulings
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
GSTAT Cuttack
Where appellant disputed any further statutory pre-deposit for Tribunal appeal after already depositing ten per cent of original disputed tax at first appeal, and first appellate order had reduced tax demand, no further pre-deposit was required for Tribunal stage since requirements under section 112 stood satisfied by earlier deposit. GST: Where Appellate Authority reduced demand and appellant filed Tribunal appeal paying court fee of Rs. 3,000 though minimum court fee prescribed under Rule 110(5) was Rs. 5,000 at Rs. 1,000 per one lakh, short payment existed and appellant was required to pay the balance
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
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
Gujarat High Court
Where without furnishing mandatory undertaking or pre-deposit for stay as required by Circular 224/18/2024-GST and relevant notifications, assessee filed GSTAT appeal seven months after Order-in-Appeal was passed, refund claim for tax recovered from assessee was untenable
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
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner's GST registration was cancelled and statutory appeal was filed with delay of 167 days due to bona fide, uncontrollable reasons including business closure and fraud-tag impacting livelihood, and Appellate Authority otherwise lacked jurisdiction to condone such delay, non-adjudication would cause grave prejudice so delay was condoned and appeal was directed to be entertained on merits
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered textile manufacturer received multiple Form GSTR-3A notices for non-filing of GSTR-3B and all notices were uploaded on common portal with no response filed, uploading constituted valid statutory service and plea for physical service was untenable, so cancellation of registration for non-filing could not be challenged on grounds of lack of natural justice. GST: Where GST-registered textile manufacturer, after registration cancellation and receipt of statutory notices, failed to pursue available remedies for revocation or file statutory appeal within limitation or satisfy pre-deposit requirements, invocation of writ jurisdiction was impermissible as statutory remedies were not exhausted and limitation bar or pre-deposit requirement could not justify bypassing these remedies, leading to dismissal of petition
Karnataka High Court
Third-party petitioner lacked locus to challenge an AAR/AAAR ruling under Article 226, as such rulings bind only applicant therein and its jurisdictional authority; absent contractual GST classification or rate terms in respect of contract entered between petitioner and said applicant, no civil consequence arose, and writ jurisdiction could not rewrite contract
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
Calcutta High Court
Where ex parte assessment and appellate orders arose due to statutory notices and orders uploaded only in 'Additional Notices/Orders' tab by incorrect tabulation, and GSTN was aware of such glitch, petitioner could not be held liable for ex-parte assessment, thus, assessment as well as appellate orders were unsustainable for breach of natural justice and both orders were to be set aside with liberty to revenue to issue fresh notice
Karnataka High Court
Where state GST initiated inquiry against a scrap trader for discrepancies and during pendency, central GST authority commenced a wider investigation and state inquiry was formally transferred, in view of fact that there was no identical liability or overlapping action and designated central authority was competent to proceed, parallel proceedings were not impermissible GST: Where petitioner challenged legality of arrest alleging non-furnishing of written grounds and lack of intimation to relatives, but records showed arrest memo was served with acknowledgment and intimation was given per Guidelines of GST Investigation Wing dated 13-01-2025, arrest action conformed to statutory parameters
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
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
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner construction contractor challenged penalty order for alleged irregular input tax credit on grounds of natural justice and jurisdiction after appeal was dismissed on limitation, since statutory appeal before GST Tribunal was enabled with additional grace period and Tribunal was competent to examine factual and legal grounds, writ petition under Article 226 could not substitute appellate remedy and same was to be dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal
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
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
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner challenged demand order alleging non- communication and denial of hearing after winding up of business, but physical hearing opportunity had been granted and GSTIN continued to remain valid, failure to reply or appear amounted to negligence, and plea of breach of natural justice was untenable as no violation thereof was made out