Goods and Services Tax

Judicial Order Permits Conditional Release of Truck and Areca-nut Cargo After Deposit of Specified Amount
Case-Laws
GST
HC declined interim relief, directing respondent authorities to release a TATA truck transporting 17,760 kg of Areca-nuts upon payment of Rs. 100,000. Regarding the goods, the court mandated selling 222 bags (80 kg each) within 15 days at best possible price, with proceeds retained in a separate account pending writ petition outcome. The appellant was permitted to participate in auction proceedings. Vehicle release was conditioned on payment, and goods sale was ordered to prevent potential deterioration and ensure preservation of value.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Procedural Flaws Invalidate Tax Notice: Lack of Natural Justice Principles Leads to Quashing of Summary Order
Case-Laws
GST
HC set aside the summary of show cause notice and summary of order due to violation of principles of natural justice. The court found that issuing summaries without proper show cause notice under Section 73(1) and order under Section 73(9) of CGST Act, 2017 was procedurally incorrect. Following the precedent in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd., the court determined that summary documents do not substitute formal legal notices and orders, which must be authenticated as per Rule 26(3) of the 2017 Rules. The petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity of hearing, rendering the proceedings invalid.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Tax Transfer Dispute Resolved: No Evasion Found in Machine Movement Between Units with Proper Documentation Validated
Case-Laws
GST
HC adjudicated a tax seizure case involving inter-unit transportation of goods. The court determined that no tax evasion occurred during the transfer of a compactor machine from Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh. Despite initial interception due to missing documentation, the subsequent production of delivery challan and e-way bill demonstrated compliance. The court emphasized that stock transfers between organizational units without a sales transaction do not attract GST liability. Critically, the respondent authority failed to establish any deliberate intent to circumvent tax regulations. Relying on precedential reasoning, the HC ruled that procedural technicalities did not warrant punitive action. The petition was ultimately allowed, nullifying the seizure proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Judicial Review Finds Demand Order Defective, Mandates Procedural Correction and Fair Hearing for Petitioner Under Section 75(6)
Case-Laws
GST
HC determined that the undated demand order was procedurally defective under Section 75(6), lacking substantive reasoning beyond referencing a show cause notice. The court remanded the matter to the respondent, directing them to provide the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the original show cause notice within four weeks. Following the petitioner's response, the respondent must conduct a hearing and issue a legally compliant order. The petition was allowed through judicial remand, requiring procedural rectification of the original administrative action.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Dismissed: Show Cause Notice Upheld Due to Petitioner's Non-Appearance and Availability of Alternative Remedy
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging a show cause notice, finding no violation of natural justice principles. The court determined that the petitioner failed to appear on the scheduled hearing date despite prior opportunities, and had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107. The order was deemed valid as the competent authority reviewed submitted documents and responses. The petitioner's claim of procedural impropriety was rejected due to non-appearance and lack of substantive evidence supporting the allegation of prejudice.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Judicial Review Exposes Procedural Gaps in Tax Penalty Application, Mandates Comprehensive Reasoning Under Section 74 CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition, finding a violation of natural justice due to lack of proper application of mind by the respondent authority under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court directed the Commissioner to review orders lacking substantive reasoning for invoking fraud provisions, specifically mandating explicit documentation of willful misstatement or material fact suppression. The judicial intervention emphasized procedural integrity by requiring comprehensive rationale when applying statutory penalties, effectively remanding the matter for comprehensive reconsideration and appropriate administrative action.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Tax Refund Claim Validated: Department Must Process Refund When No Appeal Challenges Appellate Authority's Order Under Section 54(11)
Case-Laws
GST
HC upheld the refund claim, ruling that the tax department cannot withhold the refund based solely on Section 54(11) opinion when no appeal challenges the Appellate Authority's order. The court emphasized that in the absence of a stay or pending review, the refund must be processed. The decision aligns with precedent that an administrative opinion cannot override a valid appellate order, particularly when no legal challenge exists. The refund shall be processed with potential interest for delayed payment, with the understanding that any future successful appeal would retrospectively bind the parties.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Minor Invoice Number Mismatch Does Not Justify Penalty: Technical Error Deemed Immaterial Under Section 129 Transport Rules
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that a minor discrepancy in e-way bill invoice number (3096 instead of 3063) does not warrant penalty proceedings under Section 129. The record confirmed no substantive differences in goods' quality, quantity, or items between accompanying documents. Referencing administrative circular guidance, the court determined the technical error was immaterial. The entire penalty proceedings were deemed legally unsustainable, and the petition was accordingly allowed, effectively quashing the punitive action against the transporter.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Procedural Fairness Prevails: Appeal Reinstated After Violation of Natural Justice Principles in Administrative Proceedings
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the Petitioner's appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order-in-Appeal and Rectification Order. The court found that Respondent No. 2 violated principles of natural justice by rejecting the appeal without considering the submitted Power of Attorney and without providing an opportunity to cure procedural defects. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with the Petitioner directed to submit self-certified document copies within two weeks. The decision emphasizes procedural fairness and the opportunity to rectify technical non-compliances in administrative appeals under CGST Act, 2017.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancellation Overturned: Procedural Flaws and Lack of Reasoned Order Invalidate Administrative Action
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petition challenging GST registration cancellation, finding the impugned order non-compliant with procedural requirements. The order was deemed arbitrary and passed without due application of mind, violating principles of natural justice. Specifically, the cancellation order failed to provide a speaking order with substantive reasoning as mandated under CGST Act and Rules, despite the petitioner's non-response to show cause notice. The court held that absence of reasoned explanation renders the administrative action invalid, thereby quashing the registration cancellation order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Taxpayers Can File Delayed GST Returns After Paying Interest, Court Allows Condonation of Delay Under Section 62(2)
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the 60-day period under Section 62(2) of GST Act is directory, not mandatory. The petitioner failed to file returns for October 2018 to March 2019 within prescribed time limit, resulting in a best judgment assessment order. The court determined that if an assessee demonstrates valid reasons beyond their control for delay, they can file returns after paying applicable interest and penalties. The petitioner was directed to submit an application for condonation of delay within 15 days, with the understanding that the tax authority shall consider such application on its merits, preserving the fundamental right to file returns.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Appeal Reinstated: Authorized Signatory Validated, Procedural Fairness Restored, Previous Order Set Aside for Fresh Consideration
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petitioner's appeal, finding that the authorized signatory was valid and the previous dismissal violated principles of natural justice. The court set aside the impugned order dated 30th July 2024 and directed Respondent No.2 to restore the appeal to the file for fresh consideration on merits, ensuring procedural fairness and opportunity to be heard.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Tax Credit Dispute Resolved: Taxpayer's Genuine Error Recognized, Rectification Application to Be Reconsidered Under GST Act
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed petition challenging tax determination order under GST Act. The court found the proper officer erroneously dismissed the taxpayer's rectification application without adequately examining the bonafide mistake in tax credit intimation. The HC held that when taxpayers demonstrate genuine errors and seek immediate rectification, they should not be penalized with exorbitant liabilities inconsistent with constitutional principles. The impugned order was set aside, directing the proper officer to reconsider the rectification application and reassess the tax liability with a comprehensive review of available records.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Sale of Incomplete Building Exempted from GST: Transaction Not Considered Supply of Goods or Services Under Schedule II and III
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled that the sale of an incomplete building does not constitute a supply of goods or services under GST regulations. The transaction falls outside Entry 5(b) of Schedule II, as no construction service was contemplated between parties. The sale is neither a supply of goods nor services per Schedule III. Consequently, the court quashed the respondents' order rejecting the petitioner's GST refund claim and allowed the refund application, determining that the transaction was not subject to GST levy.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Land Acquisition Compensation Exempt from GST: Solatium Payments Ruled Non-Taxable Under Service Supply Regulations
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that compensation paid as solatium for land acquisition is not subject to GST under CGST/KGST Act. The court determined that sale of land and immovable property falls outside GST taxation, even without specific schedule exemptions. The compensation does not constitute a service supply with consideration, and the conditions in land acquisition agreements do not trigger GST liability. The court emphasized that governmental land acquisition payments are not taxable transactions, and the impugned notices were deemed illegal and without legal jurisdiction. Petition was consequently allowed, quashing GST levy on land acquisition compensation.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Exporters Win: Refund Claim Upheld Despite Document Gaps, Payment Proof Not Mandatory Under CGST Rules
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed refund claim challenging rejection based on non-submission of documents. The court held that proof of payment is not mandatory for export of goods, and only reconciliation statement of Shipping Bill and Export Invoices is required. The RBI circular stipulates payment realization within 9 months, which was satisfied in this case. The order rejecting refund was deemed unsustainable as it was based on grounds beyond CGST Act & Rules, effectively invalidating the original administrative decision and granting relief to the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Registration Cancellation Order Struck Down for Procedural Flaws, Petitioner Granted Opportunity to Rectify Deficiencies
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed the GST registration cancellation order dated 20.12.2023 due to procedural irregularities and lack of reasoned decision. The order was found arbitrary and in violation of natural justice principles. The court granted the petitioner one month to either submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice or furnish pending returns with full tax payment. The Proper Officer was directed to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and pass a speaking order with explicit reasoning when taking adverse actions. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to rectify procedural deficiencies.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Govt Can Relax GST Tribunal Officer Appointment Criteria for State Servants Under Specific Service Conditions
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed the petition challenging GST Tribunal appointment notification. The court held that relaxation of eligibility criteria under Section 110(d) is permissible only for State Government officers who have not completed 25 years of service, and does not extend to All-India Service officers. The petitioner's contention that the notification was premature or ultra vires was rejected, with the court noting that identical relaxations had been granted in ten other States. The notification was found to be legally valid, and the petition was dismissed without merit.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Tax Refund Victory: Petitioner Wins Challenge Against Rejected Budgetary Support Claims Under Notification 05.10.2017
Case-Laws
GST
HC ruled in favor of petitioner, finding the rejection of budgetary support refund claims invalid. The court held that the calculation of 58% central tax and 29% IGST paid through cash ledger was correctly applied. The respondent's rejection of Rs. 31,456/- for July-September 2021 and Rs. 69,684/- for January-March 2022 quarters was deemed contrary to the notification dated 05.10.2017. The court directed respondent to release the inadmissible amounts, effectively granting the petitioner's refund claims in full.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Tax Refund Win: CGST Act Supports Partial Claims with 58% Budgetary Support for Central Tax and 29% IGST Credit
Case-Laws
GST
HC adjudicated a tax refund dispute involving budgetary support claims under CGST Act, 2017. The court found the respondent's rejection of partial refund claims improper, specifically for Rs. 48,640/- and Rs. 64,496/- for different quarters. The HC held that the petitioner was entitled to budgetary support calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid after input tax credit utilization. The court ordered respondent No. 3 to release the inadmissible amounts previously withheld, declaring the original rejection orders contrary to the notification dated 05.10.2017. Petition was disposed of with directions for refund release.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Judicial Restraint Prevails: Writ Petition Dismissed, Statutory Appeal Under Section 107 CGST Act Recommended
Case-Laws
GST
HC dismissed writ petition challenging a demand order under CGST Act. While the petition was technically maintainable under Article 226, the Court declined to entertain it due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court emphasized the established principle that when a specific statutory forum exists for grievance redressal, judicial discretionary intervention should be limited. The petitioner was directed to pursue the prescribed appellate mechanism, thereby preserving the statutory dispute resolution framework.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Budgetary Support Claim Upheld: Petitioner Wins Refund of Rs. 2,195/- Under Tax Credit Scheme Notification
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, holding that the rejection of Rs. 2,195/- by the respondent was improper and contrary to the budgetary support scheme notification. The court determined that the petitioner was entitled to budgetary support calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid, after input tax credit utilization. The HC directed the respondent to release the inadmissible amount for the quarter January 2022 to March 2022, finding no justification for the partial claim rejection.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Refund Claim Upheld: Tax Calculation Validates Petitioner's Entitlement to Rs. 8,848 in Budgetary Support Amounts
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, holding that the rejection of Rs. 1,678/- for July-September 2021 and Rs. 7,170/- for January-March 2022 quarters was improper. The court determined that the budgetary support calculation under the scheme was correctly applied, with entitlement calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid. The respondent was directed to release the inadmissible amounts in accordance with the notification dated 05.10.2017, effectively granting the petitioner's full refund claim.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Legal Challenge Succeeds: Ex-Parte Demand Orders Quashed for Violating Time Limitations and Procedural Fairness Under Section 73(9)
Case-Laws
GST
HC quashed ex-parte demand orders dated 28.12.2023 and 11.07.2023 as time-barred under Section 73(9), referencing precedent in M/s Anita Traders case. The court determined that the impugned orders were issued beyond the jurisdictional time limitation for the financial year 2017-18, violating principles of natural justice. The orders were consequently invalidated, with the petitioner's challenge successfully upheld, thereby rendering the statutory notices null and void.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Tax Authorities Must Prioritize Business Sustainability and Compliance Over Punitive Actions Under GST Regulations
Case-Laws
GST
HC censured departmental actions in GST proceedings, emphasizing that the legislative intent behind the GST regime is not to disrupt businesses or compromise livelihoods. The court critically evaluated the punitive approach, highlighting that tax compliance should foster business growth and national economic development. The interim order mandates that all departmental actions must strictly adhere to GST Act provisions, with a focus on constructive engagement rather than punitive measures. The court's ruling underscores the need for a balanced regulatory approach that supports entrepreneurial sustainability and economic progress.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =