The Bombay High Court held that assignment of leasehold rights in immovable property is a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not a supply of services under GST. The ruling clarifies that such transactions fall outside Section 7 read with Schedule II of the GST Act.
The Madras High Court held that penalties under Section 122 of the CGST Act must equal the ineligible ITC availed or passed on in circular trading cases. The Court ruled that the Rs.10,000 limit cannot apply where the statute uses the phrase “whichever is higher.”
The Karnataka High Court held that TCS liability under Section 52 arises only when an e-commerce operator collects payment for supplies made through its platform. Since the operator merely facilitated transactions without collecting consideration, GST proceedings under Section 74 were quashed.
The Bombay High Court ruled that GST authorities cannot create a negative balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger while blocking ITC under Rule 86A.
The Gujarat High Court ruled that Input Tax Credit cannot be claimed unless the supplier has actually paid tax to the Government under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act. The Court held that ITC remains a conditional statutory benefit and refused to create a bona fide purchaser exception.
The Delhi High Court ruled that GST authorities can issue a single SCN covering multiple financial years under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act. The Court held that the statutory language itself permits consolidated proceedings even in non-fraud classification disputes.
The Court held that blocking of the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A cannot continue beyond the statutory one-year period. It clarified that such restriction automatically lapses by operation of law regardless of pending departmental proceedings.
The court held that Sections 73 and 74 allow show cause notices for any period, not limited to a financial year. Consolidated notices are valid, subject to limitation checks for each period.
The central issue was whether incomplete notices satisfy legal requirements. The Court ruled that mere reproduction of statutory language without factual foundation is insufficient. The decision reinforces strict adherence to natural justice principles.
The issue was whether the 2019 amendment to Section 54 could limit earlier refund claims. The Court ruled that the amendment is prospective and cannot affect pre-amendment entitlements. Claims were held valid within extended timelines.
