The High Court held that returns filed before the cut-off date specified in Section 16(5) entitled the taxpayer to claim ITC. It quashed the order denying ITC based on the limitation under Section 16(4).
The Kerala High Court held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) was unavailable where borrowed money was invested as capital in a partnership firm and not used for the assessee’s own business.
The Kerala High Court held that Input Tax Credit could not be denied where the taxpayer filed the return before the cut-off date prescribed under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of ITC eligibility.
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking release of seized arecanut consignments and a vehicle after finding that Section 130 proceedings were already in progress. The Court held that the petitioner must raise objections before the statutory authority instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Kerala High Court set aside recovery proceedings for IGST refunds after noting that Notification No. 54/2018 was clarified to operate only from 09.10.2018. Transactions prior to that date were held outside its scope.
The Kerala High Court held that although the earlier communication was not a Section 74 notice, the subsequent GST DRC-01 notice prima facie met statutory requirements. The Court directed the taxpayer to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
Kerala High Court held that interception of a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction of its declared destination constituted a strong prima facie circumstance supporting GST detention proceedings. The writ petition challenging the detention was dismissed.
Kerala High Court ruled that authorities must determine both whether the payment amounts to a supply under Section 7(1) and whether exemption provisions apply. The case was remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Kerala High Court held that delay condonation applications under Section 119(2)(b) must comply with the revised five-year limitation prescribed by CBDT circulars. The Court ruled that authorities cannot entertain applications filed beyond the revised period.
The dispute involved jurisdiction of customs authorities to levy IGST on imports. The Court ruled that assessment includes all applicable taxes, rejecting the jurisdiction challenge.
