The issue was denial of ITC transfer due to different State registrations of entities. The Court ruled that no such restriction exists under Section 18(3) and Rule 41, making the portal condition invalid. The key takeaway is that statutory provisions override administrative limitations.
The Court ruled that interest cannot be imposed in adjudication if it was not specified in the show cause notice. The decision reinforces that authorities cannot exceed the scope of the original notice under GST law.
The issue involved taxation of intermediary services based on supplier location. The amendment shifts place of supply to recipient location, enabling export benefits and zero-rating.
Failure to serve notices at the updated registered address invalidates GST proceedings. The Court emphasized strict adherence to proper service requirements and natural justice.
The Court clarified that uploading orders under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab does not amount to proper service, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory communication requirements.
The Court permitted video recording of GST inquiry considering the petitioner’s cancer treatment and cooperation. It held that such relief can be granted on humanitarian grounds but is not a general right.
The case addressed denial of refund of VAT pre-deposit made through ITC. The Court held that Section 142(6) mandates cash refund and overrides conflicting departmental circulars, ensuring taxpayer relief.
The Court held that remanding a case violates Section 107(11) of the CGST Act. Appellate authorities must decide cases themselves instead of sending them back.
The Court held that issuing an order before the reply deadline violates natural justice. Even if penalty is paid, authorities must consider objections and pass a reasoned order.
The Court ruled that authorities cannot deny ITC by disregarding binding CBIC circulars. It held that cross-charging of ITC is legally permissible alongside ISD.
