The Supreme Court held that refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act is not payable to the applicant if tax incidence was passed on. The amount must be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
The Court held that payment of principal tax does not exempt a taxpayer from the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for appealing penalty. Compliance with Section 107(6) is compulsory.
The High Court held that the three-month period under Section 73 is mandatory. Orders passed in haste without observing this gap are unsustainable in law.
The High Court ruled that when the initial pre-deposit exceeds 20% of the revised tax demand, no additional payment can be insisted upon for filing appeal before GSTAT.
The Court held that time consumed in pursuing a rectification application under Section 161 must be excluded while computing limitation for filing a statutory appeal. Appeals dismissed as time-barred were restored for decision on merits.
Whether interest can be demanded without being specified in the show cause notice. Ruling & Takeaway: The Court held that interest not quantified in the notice cannot be added later, reaffirming strict compliance with Section 75(7).
The High Court found that the appeal was rejected ex-parte without valid service of hearing notice. The ruling stresses that portal uploading alone is insufficient when communication is disputed.
The court held that amounts credited due to a clerical RTGS error cannot be retained or recovered as tax dues when they do not belong to the account holder. Recovery provisions were ruled inapplicable, and the bank was directed to refund the money to the remitter.
A summary of the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling on GST appeal limitation periods, clarifying that the period starts upon effective communication, not just portal upload.
A summary of the 56th GST Council meeting decisions, including GST rate changes on food, personal care items, and vehicles, along with key procedural reforms.
