The Gujarat High Court examined whether a taxpayer’s selection of “No” for personal hearing could override the statutory requirement under Section 75(4). It held that the authority must still provide a hearing before passing an adverse order.
The Orissa High Court examined whether tax could be demanded after reversal of the disputed ITC. It held that raising a fresh demand for the same amount amounts to double taxation and is without authority of law.
The Rajasthan High Court examined whether GST registration could be refused due to non-filing of returns in another State. It held that a taxpayer treated as a defaulter for GST non-compliance can be denied registration elsewhere.
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exclusion must be considered while computing timelines under Section 107 of the CGST Act. A GST appeal filed within the extended condonable period cannot be dismissed as time-barred without proper consideration.
The Tribunal held that procurement services provided by a foreign group entity were substantive services rendered on its own account and not intermediary services. As a result, the transaction qualified as import of services and the refund claim was rejected.
The Delhi High Court held that exoneration under Section 73 does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 74 because both provisions operate in distinct legal spheres. Taxpayers must challenge factual findings through statutory appeals rather than writ petitions.
The Supreme Court stayed a judgment that held mere uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal does not amount to valid communication for appeal purposes. The final legal position on whether portal-based service alone starts limitation under Section 107 remains undecided.
The Supreme Court refused to bypass the statutory GST appeal mechanism and directed the taxpayer to pursue appellate remedies. However, it preserved the constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(c), leaving the ITC controversy unresolved.
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a single GST show cause notice can cover multiple financial years under Section 74. The case arises from a Kerala High Court ruling that such consolidation prejudices taxpayers and violates the statutory scheme.
The Supreme Court ruled that whenever money is staked on an uncertain outcome, the activity amounts to betting and gambling for GST purposes. GST is payable on the entire bet value or deposit and not merely on platform fees or commissions.
