GSTAT Chandigarh
For revenue
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
19 rulings found
GSTAT Chandigarh
Where appellant, as Managing Director, faced personal penalty of Rs 25,000 each under section 122(3) for two company units and total amount determined against appellant did not exceed Rs 50,000, Tribunal exercised statutory discretion to refuse admission as threshold requirement was not met, resulting in dismissal of appeal
GSTAT Ghaziabad
Departmental appeal involving disputed tax of about Rs. 6.30 lakh was liable to dismissal at threshold, as Circulars dated 05-07-2024 and 22-05-2026 prescribed Rs. 20 lakh monetary limit and furthe, Revenue had failed to establish any exception; administrative authorisation could not override binding litigation policy
GSTAT Ghaziabad
Where department filed appeal where GST amount in dispute was only Rs. 1.99 lakh while monetary threshold limit set for filing appeal by relevant circulars is Rs. 20 lak, since Revenue failed to prove any exception that would allow a low-value claim to proceed, appeal was to be dismissed at threshold without adjudication on merits
GSTAT Ghaziabad
Where Revenue filed appeal before GSTAT against quashing of IGST penalty of Rs. 5,78,160, same was held inadmissible as Circular No. 2425008 dated 5-7-2024 prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for departmental appeals and Revenue failed to establish that case fell within any specified exclusion or exception, consequently appeal was to be dismissed without adjudication on merits
Supreme Court
Notice issued in SLP filed against impugned order of High Court holding that where assessee 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
GSTAT Cuttack
Where appellant, a works contractor for Government departments and public authorities, had discharged entire GST liability before initiation of proceedings but demand of interest and penalty was confirmed under section 74 and first appeal was rejected on limitation without examining merits, operation of appellate order and recovery of disputed demand were to be stayed during pendency of section 112 appeal as recovery despite compliance with pre-deposit would defeat appellate remedy and cause irreparable prejudice
GSTAT Kolkata
Where applicants filed interlocutory applications for early hearing of 21 appeals before GSTAT citing substantial financial prejudice caused by denial of refund and pendency, with all procedural prerequisites fulfilled and respondents raising no objection to early listing, applicants established a compelling case for priority hearing and their applications for early hearing were to be accordingly allowed
GSTAT Chennai
Where appellant simultaneously filed appeals before first Appellate Authority and GSTAT on ground that department had initiated recovery proceedings, since appeal before Tribunal had been instituted before any order under section 107 or 108 was passed, such filing was premature and contrary to section 112(1), consequently, such appeal was to be dismissed with liberty to file afresh
GSTAT Thane
Where refund order under section 142(3) as well as order in first appeal was passed by applying section 11B of Central Excise Act, appeal against such order was maintainable before CESTAT and not GSTAT, rendering revenue's appeal before GSTAT not maintainable
Meghalaya High Court
Where a firm challenged demand and assessment alleging bias and natural justice violation due to seizure-based assessment and involvement of same officer in inspection and appeal, with issues on proper officer jurisdiction, reliance on seized estimates, residuary rate, and reconciliation, statutory appellate remedy under GSTAT existed, no actual bias or illegality was shown, thus, writ petitioner was to be dismissed as disputed facts were fit for GSTAT consideration
Supreme Court
Where writ petition was filed due to non-constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal and, thereafter, GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted and had become functional, assessee was relegated to statutory appellate remedy under section 112; SLP was disposed of with liberty to mention matter before President of GST Appellate Tribunal for consideration of interim relief, with discretion to grant priority hearing
GSTAT Cuttack
Where assessee deposited pre-deposit at first appeal stage exceeding percentage of tax remaining in dispute after first appellate order, no further pre- deposit was required for admission of Tribunal appeal since earlier payment equalled or surpassed statutory requirement based on surviving disputed tax, rendering any fresh deposit unjustified
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
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
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
Orissa High Court
Where assessee challenged adjudication and appellate orders through writ petition citing non-application of mind by first appellate forum, in view of fact that GST Appellate Tribunal had already been constituted and timelines for appeal were prescribed by Finance Ministry Notification, assessee was required to pursue statutory appellate remedy under Section 112, rendering continuation of writ petition unwarranted
Calcutta High Court
Where appeal against cancellation of GST registration was dismissed and tribunal was not constituted at time of filing of writ petition, writ was entertained with interim protection on deposit of 20 percent, and on tribunal becoming functional, petitioner was to be granted liberty to approach tribunal within four weeks, with direction to respondents to take no coercive action against petitioner during that period
Orissa High Court
Where adjudication order under section 74 was affirmed in first appeal and petitioner sought writ on grounds of absence of appellate forum, later notification constituted GSTAT with extended deadlines, making writ remedy unavailable since statutory appellate mechanism was operational, requiring petitioner to comply with prescribed appeal process and deposit requirements under section 112
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee's appeal under section 107 against ex-parte order for excess ITC was rejected as time-barred and Tribunal was still non-functional, writ against appellate order was maintainable as filing was within statutory window prescribed under Section 112 and Ministry Notification; alternative remedy would not oust Article 226 jurisdiction. GST: Where assessee’s appeal under section 107 was dismissed as time-barred after prior rectification was pursued in good faith and within statutory limitation, principles of section 14 of Limitation Act applied to exclude period spent on rectification proceedings, making appeal filed within condonable one month; thus, appeal would not be time-barred. GST: Where assessee filed appeal within condonable period after OIO confirming excess ITC, absence of a separate condonation application should not have led to summary dismissal, as statutory scheme and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC contemplated affording at least one opportunity to explain delay; thus, non-adherence would render appellate order unsustainable and required restoration for fresh consideration after giving such opportunity