The Karnataka High Court ruled that clinical-trial and pharma R&D services to foreign clients qualify as export of services. It held Notification 04/2019–Integrated Tax to be clarificatory and retrospective, thereby quashing GST demands for the pre-notification period.
The Court held that CBIC Master Circulars require mandatory pre-consultation before issuing high-value excise/service tax demands, even where extended limitation for alleged fraud is invoked. Notices issued without compliance were quashed.
The Court held that Section 73 does not prohibit issuance of multiple show cause notices for the same tax period when they address different discrepancies. Only overlapping demands on identical facts are impermissible.
The Court held that Section 73 requires a minimum three-month gap between show cause notice and final order. Orders passed within a shorter period were quashed as violative of natural justice.
The High Court ruled that GST authorities must mandatorily apply Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST before disallowing ITC due to return mismatches. Mechanical reversal based solely on discrepancy was held unsustainable.
The High Court ruled that GST adjudication orders must contain detailed facts and reasons. Summary notices and orders lacking particulars were set aside as legally unsustainable.
The High Court ruled that buyers are not legally required to reverse ITC merely due to seller-issued discount credit notes. Rectification of GST returns was allowed where tax paid exceeded proposed reversal and no revenue loss occurred.
The Court examined whether medicines and consumables supplied to in-patients form part of exempt health services. Adjudication was allowed to continue, but enforcement of any final order was stayed.
The Court held that while GST portal upload is a valid mode of service, officers must explore other statutory modes if no response is received. Ex parte orders passed without ensuring effective service and hearing were held to violate natural justice.
The High Court ruled that GST authorities cannot issue assessment orders or notices in the name of a deceased registrant. Such proceedings are without jurisdiction and must be set aside as legally invalid.
