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.
The Supreme Court ruled that once money is staked on an uncertain outcome, the activity becomes betting and gambling regardless of whether the game involves skill or chance. States therefore have the power to prohibit online gaming played for stakes.
Allahabad High Court held that an Advocate cannot be prosecuted merely for filing a statutory GST appeal and advising a legal course of action. The key takeaway is that professional representation alone does not establish criminal conspiracy with a client.
The Supreme Court took up a challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act where ITC was denied despite tax having been paid by the immediate supplier. The case raises the issue of whether a recipient can be penalized for alleged default by a supplier further up the supply chain.
The Supreme Court prima facie observed that Section 67(4) permits sealing of premises only when access is denied. It issued notice and sought instructions from the Department on the taxpayer’s request for de-sealing.
The High Court set aside the rectification order after finding that it was passed without granting the taxpayer an opportunity of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court upheld the view that assignment of leasehold rights in industrial land is a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not a supply of service. As a result, GST was held not applicable on the transaction.
The Bombay High Court ruled that GSTAT can grant interim stay against recovery proceedings even without an express statutory provision. The decision confirms that appellate powers inherently include powers necessary to make the appeal effective.
