Kerala High Court held that importer mis-declared semi-dried dates imported by them as fresh dates hence IGST exemption wrongly claimed. Further, importer approached to amend bill of entry only after initiation of proceedings under section 28, accordingly, amendment is not permissible.
The Court held that the two-year limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act begins from the date of payment under the correct head. Refund rejection as time-barred was quashed.
The High Court held that orders can be served through the notified GST common portal under Section 169. The challenge to portal-based communication was rejected.
The High Court ruled that uploading a notice on the GST portal constitutes valid service under Section 169. The challenge on grounds of violation of natural justice was rejected.
The Court held that ITC could not be denied where the March 2020 return was filed before the cut-off date under Section 16(5). The ruling clarifies that Section 16(5) overrides the time limit in Section 16(4).
The High Court held that claiming ITC in April for goods received then, though invoiced in March, does not amount to tax evasion. The dispute was held to require reconciliation, not penal action.
The High Court held that the petitioner had duly submitted the original title deed as security and directed the Department to trace and return it within a fixed time.
The High Court held that statutory authorities must mandatorily refer exemption claims under the Building Tax Act to the Government. Orders denying exemption without such reference were set aside.
The Court held that goods accompanied by valid documents cannot be detained under Section 129 merely due to alleged misclassification, leaving such issues to assessment proceedings.
The Court held that GST exemption under the 2025 notification applies only to individual health insurance policies. Group policies obtained through collective bargaining were ruled ineligible for exemption.
