The High Court held that GST authorities cannot issue a single show cause notice for multiple financial years under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The ruling emphasizes that tax liability and limitation must be determined year-wise.
The High Court held that imposing a large penalty for an expired E-way bill was unjustified when the goods were meant for export. Since exports are zero-rated and no tax was payable, the penalty order was set aside.
The Court held that ITC cannot be mechanically reversed merely because the supplier failed to pay GST. Authorities must prove fraud or collusion before denying credit.
The Tribunal held that tax demand cannot be confirmed solely due to return mismatch without examining reconciliation and books. The case was remanded for fresh verification under Section 73.
The issue was whether export refunds can be denied when the transferor company transfers only part of ITC after amalgamation. The Court held that partial ITC transfer is permissible and refund cannot be denied without statutory backing.
The court held that paying CGST/SGST instead of IGST does not amount to tax evasion. Authorities cannot raise fresh demands when tax is already deposited.
The court held that ITC reversal under Section 29(5) depends on a valid cancellation. Once registration is restored, the ITC demand collapses.
The High Court ruled that ITC cannot be reversed when the supplier was registered at the time of purchase and the transaction was genuine. The key takeaway is that buyers are not responsible for a supplier’s future non-compliance.
The issue was whether transporters can claim ITC on bio-diesel. The ruling confirms ITC is allowed when GST is paid under forward charge.
The Court held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied ITC merely because the supplier failed to pay GST. Recovery must be made from the defaulting seller, not the genuine buyer.
