The Orissa High Court held that rejecting a GST appeal without considering the assessee’s electronically filed explanation on delay amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after finding the delay was within the condonable period.
The Gauhati High Court held that partners can face personal penalty under Section 122(1A) for pre-2021 transactions as the provision identifies the liable person rather than creating a new offence. The Court ruled that “any person” includes partners who retained the benefit of fraudulent transactions.
The Madras High Court held that ITC cannot be denied solely due to the absence of lorry receipts, weighment slips, or e-way bills when the supplier was registered and had discharged the GST liability. The Court directed a fresh examination based on the complete evidentiary record.
The Bombay High Court held that GST recovery proceedings against a legal heir cannot be initiated without first determining liability under Section 93. The ruling emphasizes that Section 79 recovery powers require an established liability supported by due process.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that recovery proceedings under Section 79 can be initiated against banks without prior notice to the dealer once an assessment order has attained finality. The decision clarifies that Section 79 is a recovery provision that operates after tax liability is conclusively determined.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that ITC for FY 2018-19 cannot be denied merely because import and SEZ transactions were absent from GSTR-2A. The Court held that GSTR-2A did not capture such data during the relevant period, making the demand unsustainable.
The High Court held that healthcare services remain exempt even when delivered through another hospital under a revenue-sharing arrangement. Classification must follow the true nature of the supply rather than the contractual structure.
The Karnataka High Court held that granting only one day’s time to respond to a show cause notice violates principles of natural justice. The ex-parte assessment order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Madras High Court held that cross-examination is not an absolute right in GST adjudication. Where allegations of fraudulent ITC can be rebutted through invoices, e-way bills and transportation records, denial of cross-examination alone does not vitiate proceedings.
The Court held that cancellation proceedings for Rule 10A violations must be initiated through FORM GST REG-31, which grants thirty days to respond. Use of FORM GST REG-17 with a shorter timeline was found to be legally unsustainable.
