The Calcutta High Court quashed a 200% GST penalty imposed for transport of goods with an expired e-way bill. Considering the brief 50-minute delay beyond the extension window and absence of any allegation of tax evasion, the Court substituted the penalty with a token fine of Rs. 10,000.
The challenge concerns provisions inserted into the Haryana GST Act and a subsequent executive order dealing with collection of entry tax. The Court found that the matter raises important questions regarding legislative competence.
The Kerala High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant year. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
The Court found the underlying consolidated notice legally defective and consequently quashed the corresponding GST order while preserving the department’s right to initiate fresh action.
The Delhi High Court observed that rejection of a GST refund claim after repeated judicial directions to grant the refund may amount to contempt. The Court granted time to the department to file its response before further consideration.
The Kerala High Court held that the non obstante clause in Section 16(5) prevails over the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) for claiming ITC. The Court quashed the denial order and directed reconsideration of the taxpayer’s claim.
The Court set aside the refund rejection after finding that the appellate authority failed to record specific findings or provide adequate reasons. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Madras High Court held that a general penalty under Section 125 of the TNGST Act cannot be imposed when a specific late fee has already been levied. The Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed payment of the applicable late fee.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to entertain challenges to GST adjudication orders because a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available. The Court held that disputed findings on service tax liability should be examined by the appellate authority.
The High Court condoned a 720-day delay in filing a GST appeal after finding that severe financial difficulties and circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control caused the delay. The appeal was directed to be heard on merits.
