The High Court ruled that genuine clerical mistakes in GST returns cannot justify tax proceedings when the correction only reflects the true nature of transactions and causes no loss to the revenue.
The High Court granted interim relief to a contractor after observing that the determination of the Delhi Jal Board’s status under the CGST Act will decide whether GST applies at 12% or 18%.
The Karnataka High Court held that non-submission of LUT/Bond prior to export is a curable procedural lapse. Refund claims cannot be rejected solely on that ground and must be reconsidered.
The Madras High Court held that once late fee under Section 47 is levied for delayed annual return filing, authorities cannot impose an additional general penalty under Section 125. The court set aside the penalty and granted relief to taxpayers.
The Madras High Court held that ITC distribution by an Input Service Distributor arises only after conditions under Section 16(2) are satisfied. Authorities cannot insist on same-month distribution merely based on invoice issuance.
The Court held that merely uploading an order on the GST portal is not sufficient communication under Section 107. Limitation begins only after proper service under Section 169 is established.
The Bombay High Court ruled that legal services provided by an advocate to a partnership firm of advocates are exempt under service tax notifications. The tax demand and recovery proceedings were therefore set aside.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that refund of accumulated ITC under Section 54(3)(ii) cannot be denied merely because the input and output supplies are identical. The Court clarified that the law does not require comparison of principal input and output tax rates.
The High Court held that Section 94 of the BNSS only allows authorities to call for documents and does not empower police to freeze bank accounts. Since the account was frozen without proper statutory authority, the action was declared illegal.
The Gujarat High Court set aside detention proceedings after finding unexplained delay in uploading FORM GST MOV-09 and denial of personal hearing. The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with Section 129(3) timelines and Rule 142(5).
