The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer’s detailed reply and supporting documents were not considered before passing the order. The Court directed fresh adjudication through a reasoned order.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a GST order involving alleged wrongful ITC availment of over ₹17.67 crore because the adjudicating authority failed to consider an audit report relied upon by the petitioner.
The High Court held that the State could not continue GST proceedings or block ITC after failing to submit its claim during the corporate insolvency resolution process. The impugned notice and ITC blockage were set aside.
The issue involved denial of ITC without evaluating submitted documents. The Court directed authorities to reconsider objections with evidence of genuine transactions. The key takeaway is that authorities must examine taxpayer replies before issuing final decisions.
The High Court did not decide the constitutional challenge but directed authorities to reconsider the taxpayer’s objections and documents. The key takeaway is that ITC disputes must be adjudicated after proper evaluation and a reasoned order.
Relying on binding precedent, the Court issued directions to resolve overlapping GST inquiries. It stressed adherence to structured coordination mechanisms between authorities.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a tax deposit made under protest cannot be treated as voluntary payment to conclude proceedings. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
he High Court held that parallel adjudicatory proceedings under GST are barred when one authority has already initiated action on the same subject matter. It directed Central and State authorities to coordinate in line with Supreme Court guidelines to avoid duplication.
The High Court allowed manual filing of GSTR-3B where ITC could not be claimed due to an earlier error. The Court clarified that such filing would not automatically affect the confirmed tax demand.
The High Court set aside blocking of Input Tax Credit where State tax authorities had already initiated proceedings on the same subject matter. The ruling holds that parallel action by central authorities violates Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
