The Karnataka High Court held that adjudication by the same officer who conducted the GST audit raises serious concerns of bias and violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded after directing that jurisdictional objections be decided before proceeding on merits.
The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts can grant bail in UAPA cases where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial violate Article 21. The Court clarified that statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention.
The Madras High Court held that common packaging elements, graphics, and colour schemes do not automatically create a “brand name” under GST law. The ruling clarifies that exemption cannot be denied merely due to visual similarity where enforceable brand rights are relinquished.
The Bombay High Court held that importers under CIF contracts cannot be taxed under reverse charge for ocean freight since they are not recipients of the transportation service. The Court quashed the show cause notice and ruled the levy beyond statutory charging provisions.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Section 73 GST notice lacking specific details, computations, and supporting material is legally unsustainable. The ruling emphasizes that vague allegations violate principles of natural justice and deprive taxpayers of an effective opportunity to respond.
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.
