|
Sl.No.
|
Name of the Party
|
Authority
|
Ruling
|
GiST Edition
|
1
|
Rohit Enterprises
|
Bombay High Court
|
Fundamental rights of citizens cannot be curtailed by the GST Act
|
3
|
|
2
|
SE Forge Ltd
|
Gujarat High Court
|
SEZ units can claim refund of accumulated ITC
|
4
|
|
3
|
Rochem India (P) Ltd
|
Bombay High Court
|
No hardship to taxpayers due to non-constitution of Tribunal
|
5
|
|
4
|
Shree Ganesh Molasses Trading Company
|
Gujarat High Court
|
Voluntariness cannot be forced
|
8
|
|
5
|
Choksi Exports
|
Gujarat High Court
|
Verification of Supplier's supplier not mandated for claiming ITC
|
9
|
|
6
|
Delhi Duty Free Services Pvt. Ltd
|
CESTAT, Delhi
|
Contempt proceedings for failure to follow Judicial Discipline
|
10
|
|
7
|
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Alternate remedy not a bar for Writ Petition
|
12
|
|
8
|
Rajesh Kumar Dudani
|
Supreme Court
|
Deposit of GST is not a condition for anticipatory bail
|
15
|
|
9
|
R.S. Constructions
|
CESTAT, Chennai
|
SCN without RUD is a serious violation of PNJ
|
16
|
|
10
|
Balaji Exim
|
Delhi High Court
|
Refund of unutilised ITC cannot be rejected on suspicion
|
17
|
|
11
|
Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt Ltd
|
Supreme Court
|
Mere production of tax invoices would not be sufficient to claim ITC
|
18
|
|
12
|
Parity Infotech Solution Pvt. Ltd
|
Delhi High Court
|
ITC restriction under Rule 86A of CGST Rules, 2017 cannot exceed one year
|
19
|
|
13
|
Agarwal Construction Company
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Mere failure to submit a reply is not a valid ground for Cancellation of GST Registration
|
20
|
|
14
|
ARVIND GOYAL CA
|
Delhi High Court
|
Seizure of cash during search operations not permissible under GST law
|
21
|
|
15
|
Suretex Prophylactics (India) Pvt. Ltd
|
Karnataka High Court
|
Recovery cannot be made without Jurisdiction or Authority of Law
|
22
|
|
16
|
Brij Mohan Mangla
|
Delhi High Court
|
Department cannot withhold refund claim on anticipation of filing appeal
|
23
|
|
17
|
Jupiter Express Carrier Pvt Ltd
|
Karnataka High Court
|
Connivance with transporter to be adjudicated before confiscation of vehicle
|
24
|
|
18
|
PKV Agencies
|
Madras High Court
|
Non-submission of certified copy of impugned order is only a technical defect
|
25
|
|
19
|
Pinstar Automotive India Pvt Ltd
|
Madras High Court
|
When tax is not paid by supplier, the requirement to reverse ITC by buyer is only a protective move
|
26
|
|
20
|
Ernst and Young Ltd
|
Delhi High Court
|
Delhi High Court delivers judgment on Intermediary services
|
27
|
|
21
|
Shyam Sundar Sita Ram Traders
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Allegation of bogus firm not a ground for cancellation of GST registration
|
28
|
|
22
|
Google LLC
|
NCLAT, New Delhi
|
A big day for Competition law in India
|
29
|
|
23
|
Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd
|
Karnataka High Court
|
Karnataka HC strikes down Rule 89(4)(C) of CGST Rules
|
30
|
|
24
|
Indian Synthetic Rubber Pvt Ltd
|
Delhi High Court
|
Information on Anti-Dumping Proceedings cannot be obtained under RTI Act
|
31
|
|
25
|
Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd
|
Supreme Court
|
Corporate guarantee without consideration is not a taxable service
|
32
|
|
26
|
Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt. Ltd
|
Allahabad High Court
|
HC quashes SCN and Order for various contraventions under GST law
|
33
|
|
27
|
Videocon Industries Ltd
|
Supreme Court
|
SC dismisses departmental appeal to classify LCD Panels as parts of TV
|
34
|
|
28
|
Kalpesh Ghevarchand Jain
|
Bombay High Court
|
Customs Authorities do not have the power to seal immovable properties
|
35
|
|
29
|
Brandix Apparel India Private Limited
|
AAR, Andhra Pradesh
|
No levy of GST on recoveries from employees for canteen and transportation services
|
36
|
|
30
|
Mohd Muslim Hussain
|
Supreme Court
|
Accused entitled for bail if trial is not concluded within time frame equally applicable to NDPS Act
|
37
|
|
31
|
J.K. Jain Buildtech India Pvt Ltd
|
Calcutta High Court
|
Production of invoices of goods while in transit in electronic form not valid
|
38
|
|
32
|
Puranik Builders Limited
|
AAAR, Maharashtra
|
Electricity, Water, etc., services are linked to Construction services, attracts 12% GST
|
39
|
|
33
|
Pramod Singla
|
Supreme Court
|
Preventive Detention laws in India are a colonial legacy
|
40
|
|
34
|
Diwakar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd
|
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
Pressurized deposit of tax infringes Art 265 and Art 300A
|
41
|
|
35
|
Uber India Systems Private Limited
|
Delhi High Court
|
GST levy on auto/bus rides through ECO upheld
|
42
|
|
36
|
Ericsson India Private Limited
|
Madras High Court
|
Quoting of DIN in Dept. communication mandatory
|
43
|
|
37
|
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd
|
Supreme Court
|
Dettol is classifiable as a drug / medicine
|
44
|
|
38
|
Profisolutions Private limited
|
AAR, Tamilnadu
|
Cross Charge - Authority for Adverse Ruling ignites a potential bomb
|
45
|
|
39
|
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
|
Delhi High Court
|
Limitation freezes once the refund application is filed with documentary evidence
|
46
|
|
40
|
B B Agro Chem Industries
|
CESTAT, Ahmedabad
|
Mere arithmetic calculations not sufficient to prove clandestine
|
47
|
|
41
|
Aditya Polymers
|
Delhi High Court
|
Power of proper officer to cancel a registration from any date cannot be exercised arbitrarily
|
48
|
|
42
|
Chandan Exports
|
CESTAT, Ahmedabad
|
Redetermination of TV based on NIDB data and DGOV Circular is incorrect
|
49
|
|
43
|
Modern Insecticides Ltd
|
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
Amount deposited during search operation cannot be considered as a Voluntary Payment
|
51
|
|
44
|
K.I. International (INDIA) Ltd
|
Madras High Court
|
Facility to pay tax in installments does not apply to the admitted tax
|
52
|
|
45
|
Nitesh Jain Mangal Chand
|
Madras High Court
|
Provisional bank attachment cannot be for indefinite period
|
53
|
|
46
|
Saw Pipes Limited
|
Supreme Court
|
When the penalty provision is statutory and mandatory, there is no question of mens rea
|
54
|
|
47
|
Faqir Chand Vinod Kumar and Co
|
CESTAT, Mumbai
|
Re-assessment of import duty on the basis of Notification published subsequent to completion of self-assessment on the same day, is not permissible
|
55
|
|
48
|
Apca Power Private Limited
|
CESTAT, Ahmedabad
|
Ownership of goods is not the only criterion to decide "importer"
|
56
|
|
49
|
Shri Pradeep Kumar Siddha
|
Bombay High Court
|
Amount debited from the bank account of assessee without following the prescribed procedure to be re-credited
|
58
|
|
50
|
Alex Tour and Travel Private Limited
|
Delhi High Court
|
Refund cannot be withheld even if revenue intends to file an appeal against sanction order
|
59
|
|
51
|
Ramesh Abhishek
|
Delhi High Court
|
Writ Petition not to be entertained for stopping investigation of Lokpal
|
60
|
|
52
|
Yamal Manojbhai
|
Supreme Court
|
Supreme Court delivers split verdict on jurisdiction of Settlement Commission in relation to goods specified under Section 123
|
61
|
|
53
|
Amorous Trading India Private Limited
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Stay on levy of GST on Mining Lease/Royalty granted by Allahabad High Court
|
62
|
|
54
|
Aditya Tripathi
|
Supreme Court
|
Accused not entitled to bail in Money Laundering case merely because chargesheet has been filed in a predicate offence
|
63
|
|
55
|
Tata Motors Ltd
|
Supreme Court
|
Credit Note attracts Sales Tax
|
64
|
|
56
|
Y. Balaji vs. Karthik Desari and Anr
|
Supreme Court
|
"BRIBE" - Offence Under PMLA
|
65
|
|
57
|
Delhi International Airport Ltd
|
Supreme Court
|
User Development Fee not liable to Service Tax
|
66
|
|
58
|
Mody Education Foundation
|
CESTAT, New Delhi
|
Service not liable for Service Tax since the same is bundled with Education Service
|
67
|
|
59
|
Sidhivinayak Chemtech Private Limited
|
Delhi High Court
|
Commissioner alone can provisionally attach
|
68
|
|
60
|
Badri Prasad Yadav
|
Patna High Court
|
Writ cannot rectify delay beyond COD
|
69
|
|
61
|
Bansal Industries
|
AAAR, Punjab
|
RCM applicable on purchases through agent of agriculturist
|
70
|
|
62
|
White Gold Bullion Pvt Ltd
|
AAR, Karnataka
|
Margin valuation inapplicable for the supply of used jewellery after melting
|
71
|
|
63
|
PES Engineers Pvt Ltd
|
AAR, Telangana
|
Supply through separate contracts not naturally bundled and hence not composite
|
72
|
|
64
|
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd
|
AAAR, Punjab
|
Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling has the power of remand to AAR
|
73
|
|
65
|
M.S. Cycle Shop
|
Patna High Court
|
Assessment cannot be based solely on E-way bill
|
74
|
|
66
|
Perfect Vending (India) Pvt Ltd
|
CESTAT, Chennai
|
Exemption from Service Tax cannot be claimed on the pretext of having paid State levy/VAT
|
75
|
|
67
|
Uttarakhand Public Financial Strengthening Project
|
AAR, Uttarakhand
|
Whether reimbursements liable for GST as Additional Consideration?
|
76
|
|
68
|
Vivek Mishra
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Specific instance of bail where petitioner not proprietor of firm involved
|
77
|
|
69
|
Devyani International Limited
|
Rajasthan High Court
|
Subsequent Legislation can be used to interpret earlier obscure/ambiguous Legislations
|
78
|
|
70
|
Amrinder Singh
|
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
Bail not to be denied to satisfy collective sentiments or as a punitive measure
|
80
|
|
71
|
B.C.Power Controls Limited
|
Rajasthan
High Court
|
Application for refund cannot be kept pending even when fake credit is being investigated
|
81
|
|
72
|
The Kennel Club of India
|
Madras High Court
|
Ban on import of dogs for commercial breeding lifted
|
82
|
|
73
|
RHC Global Exports Private Limited
|
Gujarat High Court
|
Cost imposed for attempt to delay investigation through filing of WP
|
83
|
|
74
|
Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank)
|
NCLAT, New Delhi
|
NCLAT has got inherent powers to recall a decision
|
84
|
|
75
|
Sanjeevani Psychiatric Clinic
|
AAR, Rajasthan
|
Treatment of SUD attracts GST
|
85
|
|
76
|
Govind Prasad Todi
|
Delhi High Court
|
Post IBC only RP is responsible
|
86
|
|
77
|
Mek Pheriperals India Private Limited
|
AAAR, Maharashtra
|
Target-based incentives attract GST @ 18%
|
87
|
|
78
|
Coal India Ltd
|
Supreme Court
|
Competition Law applicable to Companies formed through Nationalisation Act
|
88
|
|
79
|
Gargo Traders
|
Calcutta High Court
|
ITC not deniable due to retrospective cancellation of registration of supplier
|
90
|
|
80
|
Steel Authority Of India Ltd
|
CESTAT, Bangalore
|
Duty cannot be demanded on stock difference without proving clandestine removal
|
91
|
|
81
|
Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel
|
Supreme Court
|
Change in controlling interest does not amount to Oppression
|
92
|
|
82
|
Devi Traders
|
Telangana High Court
|
Assessment under Section 61 not pre-requisite to invoke Section 74
|
93
|
|
83
|
Bitumix India LLP
|
Calcutta High Court
|
Not all e-way bill violations can be imposed 200% penalty
|
94
|
|
84
|
Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust
|
Karnataka High Court
|
Voluntary donations received by Charitable Trust's Educational Institution is not Capitation Fee
|
95
|
|
85
|
V Sundararaj
|
Madras High Court
|
Once Central Law is held unconstitutional by a High Court, it becomes invalid across the country
|
96
|
|
86
|
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
|
Delhi High Court
|
Advocates' office run from residence not subject to property tax
|
98
|
|
87
|
Shree Ram Agrotech
|
Jharkhand High Court
|
Recovery is not tenable unless a proper Show Cause Notice is issued
|
99
|
|
88
|
South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land
|
King's Bench for Saskatchewan, Canada
|
Use of thumbs up in a text message amounts to acceptance of the contract - Canadian court rules
|
100
|
|
89
|
HCC-CPL (JV)
|
Gauhati High Court
|
Reimbursement claims of GST on the differential amount on account of price variation
|
101
|
|
90
|
Seya Industries Ltd
|
Bombay High Court
|
ITC available cannot be blocked without issuing Show Cause Notice
|
102
|
|
91
|
Sri Muthuraman Traders
|
Madras High Court
|
High court condones delay in filing GST Appeal beyond COD
|
103
|
|
92
|
Reliance Industries Ltd
|
Supreme Court
|
Accusation of non-disclosure can only be made if there is in the first instance
a requirement to disclose
|
104
|
|
93
|
S.Ve.Shekher
|
Madras High Court
|
Sender of a forwarded message responsible for the content
|
105
|
|
94
|
Pulikkippoyil Sharafudheen
|
Kerala High Court
|
Quantity of gold collectively smuggled should be treated as individually smuggled for considering bail
|
106
|
|
95
|
Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Limited
|
AAAR, Tamilnadu
|
Supply of food at a subsidized rate is not a perquisite
|
107
|
|
96
|
Andhra Sugars Limited
|
CESTAT, Hyderabad
|
Judicial discipline mandates that an order which attained finality cannot be reopened
|
108
|
|
97
|
Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd
|
Supreme Court
|
Supreme Court holds that IBC overrides the Electricity Act and dues payable to secured creditors are at a higher footing
|
109
|
|
98
|
Malabar Gold Private Limited
|
AAR, Kerala
|
Netting off receivables and payables satisfies payment condition and does not constitute supply under GST
|
110
|
|
99
|
Uniseven Engineering & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
|
Delhi High Court
|
Dues from suppliers cannot be recovered invoking MSMED Act, 2006
|
111
|
|
100
|
Choodamani Parmeshwaran
|
Supreme Court
|
Writ of mandamus cannot be issued to prevent officer from performing statutory duty
|
112
|
|
101
|
Isha Foundation
|
AAR, Karnataka
|
Education provided by Isha Foundation is subject to GST
|
113
|
|
102
|
Savita Oil Technologies Ltd
|
Bombay High Court
|
Appeal against Form DRC 05: In absence of provision for online filing, offline facility to be extended to assesse
|
114
|
|
103
|
Ramesh Kumar Patodia
|
Calcutta High Court
|
No GST liability on loan by a Bank to its Credit-Card holders
|
115
|
|
104
|
Thirumalakonda Plywoods
|
Andhra Pradesh court
|
Time limit to avail ITC imposed u/s 16(4) of the CGST Act is not Ultra-Vires
|
116
|
|
105
|
Ashish Kakkar
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Recording of 'Necessity to Arrest' is mandatory in GST cases
|
117
|
|
106
|
Narayan Power Solutions
|
Bombay High Court
|
No power to seal premises or stop business under Customs Act
|
118
|
|
107
|
Suncraft Energy Private Limited
|
Calcutta High Court
|
Mismatch of GSTR 2A and 3B- Ensuring compliance at the end of supplier is paramount
|
119
|
|
108
|
M/s. Srisai Luxurious Stay LLP
|
AAR, Karnataka
|
No GST exemption on the rental services provided by PG/Hostel
|
120
|
|
109
|
M/s. Balaji Enterprises
|
Delhi High Court
|
CBIC to expeditiously devise a procedure for release of bank attachment
|
121
|
|
110
|
Chamundeswari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited
|
AAR, Karnataka
|
Charging of electric vehicles is supply of services
|
122
|
|
111
|
M/s. Vinod Metal & one other
|
Bombay High Court
|
Payment under Section 73(5) to be considered against pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act
|
123
|
|
112
|
Britannia Industries Limited
|
Gujarat High Court
|
Limitation period commences from date of service of order either manually or online whichever is earlier
|
124
|
|
113
|
Jem Exporter
|
Bombay High Court
|
Procedural defects in filing appeal to be dealt by issuing defect memo, not by dismissing entire appeal
|
125
|
|
114
|
S A Iron and Metal
|
Andhra Pradesh High Court
|
Can't force horses to run tying their legs
|
126
|
|
115
|
Parsvnath Traders and Another
|
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
Amount paid under stress of investigation cannot be considered as Self-Assessment or Self-Ascertainment
|
127
|
|
116
|
Ashok Shewakramani
|
Andhra Pradesh High Court
|
All Directors are not vicariously liable in cheque bounce cases
|
128
|
|
117
|
Arhaan Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Solutions Pvt Ltd
|
Andhra Pradesh High Court
|
Confiscation during transit not permissible by initiating proceedings against the supplier u/s. 130
|
129
|
|
118
|
Aastha Enterprises
|
Patna High Court
|
ITC is available ONLY if supplier pays the tax
|
130
|
|
119
|
Koduvayur Constructions.
|
Kerala High Court
|
Order served on common portal even after cancellation of registration is a legal mode of service
|
131
|
|
120
|
Deepak Khandelwal
|
Delhi High Court
|
“Things” mentioned in seizure provisions of GST Act does not mean any and every thing
|
132
|
|
121
|
Munna Traders
|
Patna High Court
|
No scope for second appeal to the Tribunal when first appeal is dismissed on time limit
|
133
|
|
122
|
M/s. Globolive 3D Pvt Ltd.
|
Bombay High Court
|
Not all transfers of digital work through an electronic medium can be considered as an OIDAR
|
134
|
|
123
|
Irfan @ Naka
|
Supreme Court
|
Dying declaration unless properly corroborated cannot serve as basis for conviction
|
135
|
|
124
|
Karnani FNB Specialities LLP
|
AAR, West Bengal
|
Common ITC reversal applicable for sale of alcoholic beverages
|
136
|
|
125
|
Luminous Power Technologies Private Limited
|
Madras High Court
|
Payment under DRC-03 is not voluntary and can be agitated
|
137
|
|
126
|
TVL Raja Stores
|
Madras High Court
|
Audit cannot be initiated after GST registration is cancelled
|
138
|
|
127
|
JK Cement Ltd
|
E-way bill exemption by one state cannot be overlooked by the other
|
139
|
|
128
|
SAV Constructions
|
Madras High Court
|
"Interest only on unpaid portion of the amnesty scheme"
|
140
|
|
129
|
Orient Cement Ltd
|
AAR, Karnataka
|
Transfer of incentive goods are not 'gifts' and constitute supply
|
141
|
|
130
|
Vikas Enterprises
|
Delhi, High Court
|
No freezing of bank account without authority of law
|
142
|
|
131
|
Smt. Amina Begum
|
Telangana High Court
|
Aadhar not mandatory to avail statutory benefits
|
143
|
|
132
|
M/s. Tata Steel. Ltd.
|
Jharkhand High Court
|
Substantive amendment to be read prospectively unless otherwise specified
|
144
|
|
133
|
Glanbia Performance Nutrition India Pvt Limited
|
CESTAT, Ahmedabad
|
Section and Chapter notes under the Customs Tariff Act to take precedence in case of conflict with HSN
|
145
|
|
134
|
Luksha Consulting Private Limited
|
AAR, Tamilnadu
|
Supply of services to related companies incorporated outside India are export of services
|
146
|
|
135
|
UPL Limited
|
Bombay High Court
|
Unreasonable delay in adjudication warrants quashing of Show Cause Notice
|
147
|
|
136
|
Sita Pandey
|
Patna High Court
|
Tax authorities should also be facilitator of business and economy, not mere extortionists to satisfy superiors
|
148
|
|
137
|
P. R. Hardwares
|
Madras High Court
|
High Court holds that adjudication in urgency is a violation of Natural Justice
|
149
|
|
138
|
P. M. Paul
|
Supreme Court
|
Appeal withdrawn for availing amnesty scheme to be restored on rejection of application under such amnesty scheme
|
150
|
|
139
|
Pee Gee Fabrics Private Limited
|
Gujarat High Court
|
Refund for a tax period can be split and claimed in hyper-technical circumstances
|
151
|
|
140
|
M/s Guru Storage Batteries
|
Bombay High Court
|
State Tax Officer has no authority to block Electronic Credit Ledger
|
152
|
|
141
|
M/s. M.B. Enterprises
|
Madras High Court.
|
Opportunity for personal hearing mandatory when adverse decision is contemplated
|
153
|
|
142
|
M/s. Best Crop Science Pvt Ltd
|
Delhi High Court.
|
SCN issued beyond 6 months from date of prohibition order not invalid
|
154
|
|
143
|
Juspay Technologies Pvt Ltd
|
AAR, Karnataka
|
ECO not liable to pay tax for supplies not provided “THROUGH” them
|
155
|
|
144
|
M/s Kesoram Industries Ltd
|
Telangana High Court
|
Prior notice under Section 73 mandatory for garnishee proceedings
|
156
|
|
145
|
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd
|
Delhi High Court
|
Amount paid under the mistake of law to be refunded
|
157
|
|
146
|
K.B. Tyres
|
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
Goods cleared for home consumption cannot be confiscated from hands of purchaser of importer
|
158
|
|
147
|
HITZE Boilers Pvt Ltd
|
AAR, Karnataka
|
Government subsidies not affecting the price of supply cannot be excluded from value of supply
|
159
|
|
148
|
M/s Geekay Wires Limited
|
AAR, Telangana
|
Credit availed on inputs to be reversed when final products are destroyed
|
160
|
|
149
|
SRM Engineering Construction Corporation Limited
|
Madras High Court.
|
Delay in filing appeal condoned considering the hitch in petitioner's business
|
161
|
|
150
|
M/s Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Ltd
|
CESTAT, Delhi
|
Rule 4 overrides Rule 3 of Point of Taxation Rules 2011 when there is change in rate of tax
|
162
|
|
151
|
Colossustex Pvt. Ltd.
|
Bombay High Court
|
Government cannot act beyond the powers conferred on it by the legislature
|
163
|
|
152
|
M/s Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar
|
Allahabad High Court
|
GST provision does not mandate mention of route in documents while transporting goods
|
164
|
|
153
|
Amit Gupta
|
Delhi High Court
|
Parallel proceedings initiated for the same subject matter to be transferred to one authority
|
165
|
|
154
|
M/s. Vidya Coal Depot
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Cancellation of GST registration in Taj Trapezium Zone only on grounds of pollution is illegal
|
166
|
|
155
|
M/s. PMA Controls India Limited
|
Madras, High Court.
|
Penalty and Interest set aside in Tran 1 case on ground of Revenue Neutrality
|
167
|
|
156
|
M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd
|
Supreme Court
|
The expression government authority deserves wide interpretation
|
168
|
|
157
|
Aditya Medisales Limited
|
Jharkhand High Court
|
VAT assessment cannot be done under the pretext of scrutinising Tran 1 credit
|
169
|
|
158
|
M/s Vacmet India Ltd.
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Stock transfer between units in same State not liable for Section 129 proceedings in absence of intent to evade
|
170
|
|
159
|
Vishwanath Iron Store
|
Patna High Court
|
Wrongly paid CGST and SGST cannot be appropriated as IGST unless the procedure under GST law is followed
|
171
|
|
160
|
M/s. Baibhaw Construction Private Limited
|
Patna High Court
|
First Investigation First Preference
|
172
|
|
161
|
Care College of Nursing and others
|
Telangana High Court
|
Exemption notifications to be interpreted strictly
|
174
|
|
162
|
Tirumala Constructions
|
Supreme Court
|
Retrospective VAT amendments made by the States post-GST are void
|
175
|
|
163
|
Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd
|
Madras, High Court.
|
Recovery Notice quashed for non-observation of procedural safeguards
|
176
|
|
164
|
M/s. Luxmi Township Limited
|
CESTAT, Kolkata
|
Perpetual assignment of leasehold rights not taxable as 'Renting of immovable property service'
|
179
|
|
165
|
M/s Global Plasto Wares
|
Kerala High Court
|
Waiver of penalty under Section 73 (8) not applicable when tax is collected and not paid within due date
|
180
|
|
166
|
Stackline Systems Private Ltd
|
Telangana High Court
|
Certain powers of competent authority not to be delegated to his subordinates
|
181
|
|
167
|
Nahar Industrial enterprises Ltd.
|
Rajasthan High Court
|
Extraneous consideration restriction refund under ids is beyond scope of section 54 of CGST/SGST act.2017
|
183
|
|
168
|
M/s. Shree Jeet Transport
|
Chhattisgarh, High Court
|
Agreement between parties cannot over-ride statutory provisions
|
182
|
|
169
|
Shankaranarayana Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
|
CESTAT, BANGALORE
|
No liability of interest when mobilization advances are provided as loans
|
184
|
|
170
|
Velayudhan Gold LLP
|
Kerala High Court
|
An authorisation for seizure under Section 67 is given for business premise as a whole and not to specific books, things or documents
|
185
|
|
171
|
Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited
|
Madras, High Court.
|
Notice for personal hearing uploaded in portal just 36 hours prior to hearing is violation of natural justice
|
186
|
|
172
|
Smt. K. Malathi
|
Madras, High Court
|
Recovery shall be made from Director under Section 88 (3) of CGST Act if the Company doesn't have sufficient funds
|
187
|
|
173
|
Modi Naturals
|
Supreme Court
|
Full Input tax credit eligible even when VAT exempt by-product is generated during manufacture of taxable goods
|
188
|
|
174
|
Sun Flag Iron and Steel Company Limited
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Expiry of e way bill not to affect genuineness of the transaction, when e invoice and e way bill not cancelled in GST portal
|
189
|
|
175
|
Rama Brick Fields
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Demand on composition dealer for non-payment of tax by supplier quashed
|
190
|
|
176
|
Nahasshukoor
|
Kerala High Court
|
Prescription of conditions to avail ITC cannot be considered as discriminatory to contravene Article 14
|
191
|
|
177
|
M/s. KJ International
|
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
ITC blocked during adjudication proceedings released retaining 10% equivalent to amount of pre deposit
|
192
|
|
178
|
Buildtech Private Limited
|
Allahabad High Court
|
To pass an adverse order PH is to be given even if the same is not sought
|
193
|
|
179
|
M/s. Samayshristi Enterprises vs Supdt.
|
Delhi High Court
|
GST Registration once cancelled and restored cannot be cancelled again for the same reasons
|
194
|
|
180
|
CCE vs AGR Steel strips Pvt Ltd
|
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
Duty paid under mistake by supplier of inputs can be validly availed as credit
|
195
|
|
181
|
Philips Carbon Black Limited vs State of Kerala and Ors
|
Kerala High Court
|
State Tax officers have no jurisdiction to issue notice and pass order under Section 129 in respect of Inter-State Supply
|
196
|
|
182
|
Commercial Tax Officer vs Suzlon Energy Ltd & Anr
|
Madras High Court
|
Inadvertent payment of GST at higher rate cannot bar refund under IDS
|
197
|
|
183
|
Clear Secured Services Private Limited Vs Commissioner, State Tax GST, U.P Commercial Tax & Anr
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Penalty imposed under GST Act should be commensurate with degree and severity of breach
|
198
|
|
184
|
Millennium Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered
|
199
|
|
185
|
SRK Enterprises Vs. Asst. Commissioner (ST) and Ors
|
Andhra Pradesh High Court
|
Unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law
|
200
|
|
186
|
Abdul Samad Mohamed Inayathullah vs The Supdt. of CGST & CE
|
Madras High Court
|
Notices served should fulfill the purpose beyond mere formality
|
201
|
|
187
|
ARS Energy Pvt Ltd vs Addl. Commissioner (Appeals) and Anr
|
Madras High Court
|
Refund of IGST on Ocean freight eligible even if filed beyond limitation
|
202
|
|
188
|
Ishagni Enterprises India Pvt Ltd Vs the Assistant Commissioner
|
Madras, High Court
|
Writ jurisdiction cannot entertain question of fact regarding existence of additional place of business
|
203
|
|
189
|
Raymond Limited v. Union of India & 3 ors
|
Madhya Pradesh High Court
|
State Tax Department directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- in Petitioner's (Tax Payer) account towards 'Cost of Petition'
|
204
|
|
190
|
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and ORS.
|
Delhi High Court
|
Refund of accumulated ITC arising out of inverted duty structure not confined to single /principal input
|
205
|
|
191
|
Grapes Digital Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner and ors
|
Delhi High Court
|
Revenue neutrality not a ground for waiver of interest
|
206
|
|
192
|
S.K Chakraborty & Sons vs UOI and Ors
|
Calcutta High Court
|
Delay in filing appeal beyond time under GST can be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963
|
207
|
|
193
|
Bansal International Vs Commissioner of DGST and ANR
|
Delhi High Court
|
Refund payable consequent to appellate order attracts interest from original date of entitlement
|
208
|
|
194
|
Santhosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan Polymers Vs. Union of India through Secretary & Ors
|
Delhi High Court
|
Information that supplier is non existent is sufficient 'reason to believe' under Section 67 for search against buyers
|
209
|
|
195
|
M/s. Vardhaman Gold vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors
|
Andhra Pradesh High Court
|
Audit report concluded without granting statutory time for response invalid
|
210
|
|
196
|
Saloom trading vs The Superintendent, CGST
|
Kerala High Court
|
Notification granting waiver of late fee for GSTR 9/9C shall not be period specific
|
211
|
|
197
|
M/S. VMR TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED
|
Madras High Court
|
In absence of specific first charge, Customs department cannot claim precedence over property sold under SARFAESI
|
212
|
|
198
|
BHAGAT RAM OM PRAKASH AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST
|
Delhi High Court
|
Search memo issued solely on the basis of order of a Special Judge suspecting GST evasion is not valid
|
213
|
|
199
|
Jain Brothers vs. Union of India & Ors
|
Chhattisgarh High Court
|
Writ petition filed in the name of proprietorship cannot invoke Article 19 (1) (g) violation while challenging constitutionality of a section
|
214
|
|
200
|
Star Engineers (I) Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India & Ors
|
Bombay High Court
|
Department shall permit assessees to correct inadvertent errors in return filing to avoid unwarranted litigation and make system assessee friendly.
|
215
|
|
201
|
In re: M/s. Kavin HP Gas Gramin Vitrak vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors
|
Madras High Court
|
ITC cannot be denied for reason of belated filing of GSTR 3B returns
|
216
|
|
202
|
M/s. K. Anil Jewelers vs. UT of J&K
|
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High court
|
Delivery note would not suffice the requirement of delivery challan under GST
|
217
|
|
203
|
CGST Vs. Iftikar Malik
|
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
|
Non issuance of notice under CrPC is a ground for bail
|
218
|
|
204
|
M/s. Thirumalai Sales Corporation vs The Assistant Commissioner
|
Madras High Court
|
Physical SCN to be issued, once GST registration is cancelled
|
219
|
|
205
|
M/s. Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt Ltd vs. CCE
|
CESTAT Chennai
|
Refund of service tax paid post GST is appealable before CESTAT
|
220
|
|
206
|
M/s. Friends Mobile vs The State of Bihar and 2 Others
|
Patna High Court
|
10% mandatory pre-deposit for filing an Appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act can be paid from the Electronic Credit Ledger
|
221
|
|
207
|
S. Rekha and Ors vs the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai
|
Madras High Court.
|
Adjudication order passed after demise of registered person is non est in law
|
222
|
|
208
|
M/s. Tejas Arecanut Traders vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and Anr
|
Karnataka High Court
|
Legislative scheme of 'pre-deposit' under GST does not factor in interest and penalties which are consequential to tax demand
|
223
|
|
209
|
DGGI has pan India jurisdiction to order provisional attachment
|
Calcutta High Court
|
DGGI has pan India jurisdiction to order provisional attachment
|
224
|
|
210
|
Leyla Mohmoodi & Ors. vs The Addl.
Commissioner of Customs & Ors
|
Bombay High court
|
Mere seizure of goods by Customs Officer cannot be construed to confer on him any Power or Authority to sell
|
225
|
|
211
|
Fins Engineers and Contractors (P) Ltd vs The Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise & Ors.
|
Kerala High Court
|
Balance of Tax Deducted under VAT not eligible to be carried forward to GST through Tran 1 as Input Tax Credit
|
226
|
|
212
|
M/s. Jey Tech Moulds Dies vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST) & Anr.
|
Madras High Court
|
Freeze on bank account can be lifted when appeal is filed with required pre-deposit
|
227
|
|
213
|
M/s. Mittal Footcare through its Proprietor Mr. Ashwani Mittal vs. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Anr
|
Delhi High Court
|
Refund cannot be rejected for reason of non-supply of documents or lack of authentication in such documents
|
228
|
|
214
|
J&K Diagnostic Traders Association vs. State of JK and Ors.
|
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
|
Diagnostic kits can be considered as drugs only when duly notified under Section 3 (b) (iv) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
|
229
|
|
215
|
Saroj Gagneja vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Goods & Services Tax, Delhi
|
Delhi High Court
|
Reasons for cancellation of GST registration should not be solely the subjective satisfaction of the officer
|
230
|
|
216
|
Comfort Shoe Components Vs. Assistant Commissioner
|
Madras High Court
|
Thirty days’ time limit under Section 62 of GST Act for filing returns is directory
|
231
|
|
217
|
Kali Shankar Enterprises Vs Additional Commissioner and 3 others
|
Andhra Pradesh High Court
|
Filing of NIL returns cannot be a ground for cancellation of GST registration
|
232
|
|
218
|
Titan Company Ltd Vs the Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem & ors
|
Madras High Court
|
Clubbing of financial years for SCN not permissible since Section 73 (10) has varying due dates for each financial year
|
233
|
|
219
|
R.C. Infra Digital Solutions Vs.
UOI & Ors
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Delegation of powers to other officers by DGSI is not ultravires the provisions of GST
|
234
|
|
220
|
Vivek Narsaria., vs State of Jharkhand
|
Jharkhand High Court
|
Bar on simultaneous proceedings: Authorities commencing investigation to bring it to its logical conclusion
|
235
|
|
221
|
Nexus Motors Pvt Ltd vs State Bihar & Ors.
|
Patna High Court
|
Patna HC resets the terminal data of the Amnesty scheme under Notification No.53/2023 -CT dt. 02.11.2023.
|
236
|
|
222
|
M/s. Eicher Motors Limited Vs. The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, Chennai and Anr.
|
Madras High Court
|
No interest is payable if there is balance in Electronic Cash Ledger
|
237
|
|
223
|
Maithan Alloys Limited vs. Union of India and Ors.
|
Andhra Pradesh High Court
|
No exception for 'GST compensation cess' on import of goods to SEZ from outside India
|
238
|
|
224
|
Shri Raj Kumar Swarnkar vs Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow
|
CESTAT, Allahabad
|
Burden of proof is on the revenue for the service of order.
|
239
|
|
225
|
Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P vs M/s. Mishra Tea Blending and Packing Industries, UP
|
Supreme Court
|
Activity of blending and packing of tea not "manufacture"
|
240
|
|
226
|
Divya S. R. vs Union of India & Ors.
|
Kerala High Court
|
When SCN is not contested, application for recertification after adjudication order is bound to fail
|
241
|
|
227
|
Openwave India Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors.
|
Bombay High Court
|
Appellate Orders shall be passed in time bound manner though not provided under law.
|
242
|
|
228
|
Lansun Logistics Ltd vs Commissioner (Appeals II)
|
Madras High Court
|
Appeal filed belatedly due to incorrect period mentioned in preamble of OIO cannot be rejected as Time Barred
|
243
|
|
229
|
RKEC Projects Limited vs. Additional Commissioner & Ors.
|
Andhra Pradesh High Court
|
Substance of a notice over its form, determines the true nature of the notice
|
244
|
|
230
|
Jagannathdham Superstructures Pvt Ltd & Ors Vs. Deputy Director, DGGI & Ors
|
Orissa High Court
|
Copy of Search Warrant need not be given before commencement of Search
|
245
|
|
231
|
M/s. Yonex India Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India and 3 Others
|
Karnataka High Court
|
Holding shares in a subsidiary company by a parent company cannot be treated as a supply of services
|
246
|
|
232
|
Supreme Paradise vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)
|
Madras High Court
|
Discounts received can be added to taxable value only if it is a subsidy disguised as a discount
|
247
|
|
233
|
M/s. Sanjeevani Gum Udyog vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
|
Calcutta High Court
|
GSTR - 9C is to be considered during assessment
|
248
|
|
234
|
Sajal Kumar Das vs State of West Bengal & Ors
|
Calcutta High Court
|
Power of Rectification not akin to power of review
|
249
|
|
235
|
Malabar Fuel Corporation Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Central Tax and Central Excise, Kannur
|
Kerala High Court
|
No bar in claiming refund under IDS when input and output supplies are of the same commodity
|
250
|
|
236
|
M/s. Ashoka P.U. Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and 3 Others
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Distinction between inadvertent technical errors and purposeful attempts to circumvent tax mandatory while imposing penalty
|
251
|
|
237
|
J. M. Traders Vs The Deputy Commissioner & Anr
|
Madras High Court
|
Communication of reasons in writing is implied in language and power under Rule 86A for blocking ITC
|
252
|
|
238
|
Kronos Solutions India Private Limited Vs Union of India and 4. Others
|
Allahabad High Court
|
The First Appellate Authority under GST has no power to remand for Denovo adjudication
|
253
|
|
239
|
Engineers India Private Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Central Tax).
|
Madras High Court
|
Any claim for refund of tax or interest under GST is covered within the scope of Section 54 of the CGST Act
|
254
|
|
240
|
Prahitha Construction Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India
|
Telangana High Court
|
Transfer of Development rights not akin to sale of land under Sch.lll / Entry 5 of GST Act
|
255
|
|
241
|
M/s. Sri Shanmuga Hardware Electricals vs The State Tax Officer
|
Madras High Court
|
Non-availment of ITC through GSTR 3B is not a sole basis for denying ITC
|
256
|
|
242
|
Anhad Impex & Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
|
Delhi High Court
|
Delhi High Court observes that GST Portal has a complex architecture
|
257
|
|
243
|
Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited Vs Commissioner, CGST, Appeals And Another
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Filing of self-certified copy of impugned order not mandatory after e-filing of appeals
|
258
|
|
244
|
M/s. Himadri Speciality Chemical & Anr. vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata
|
Calcutta High Court
|
Ex-Parte adjudication order passed during pendency of WP challenging Show Cause Notice, is invalid
|
259
|
|
245
|
Tvl. Murugesan Kesavan Vs. The State Tax Officer
|
Madras High Court
|
Madras High court quashed the proceedings which is merely based on statements
|
260
|
|
246
|
Penna Cement Industries Ltd. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
|
Andhra Pradesh High Court
|
Recovery proceedings not to be initiated before the expiry of Appeal limitation period
|
261
|
|
247
|
Ravi Kumar Jain vs UOI & 3 Ors
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Ex-Parte observations in adjudication order should not be considered for sanctioning Prosecution
|
262
|
|
248
|
Sakthi Steel Trading vs. Assistant Commissioner
|
Madras High Court
|
Flexibility required in mode of service of Notices to ensure that PNJ is not violated
|
263
|
|
249
|
M/s. MPPKVV Co. Ltd. v. GST and Central Excise Commissioner
|
Supreme Court of India
|
Voluntary withdrawal of writ petition- Whether time lapsed on account of pendency of writ to be excluded while pursuing alternate remedy?
|
264
|
|
250
|
M/s. AFORTUNE TRADING RESEARCH LAB LLP Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-)
|
Madras High Court
|
Payment of export proceeds in INR through intermediary fulfils the condition for export of service
|
266
|
|
251
|
M/s. K.P. Indane Service vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
|
Jharkhand High Court
|
Service of summary of DRC 01 without service of Show Cause notice invalid
|
267
|
|
252
|
Shri Yogesh Rajendra Mehra vs. The Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise and 2 others
|
Bombay High Court
|
Deficient GST Appeals cannot be held as invalid
|
268
|
|
253
|
M/s. Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd vs UOI & Ors
|
Bombay High Court
|
Bombay HC dismisses challenge against powers of officers of Audit Commissionerate to issue SCN
|
269
|
|
254
|
In Re: SVERA Agro Limited Vs Commissioner of CT & GST
|
Delhi High Court
|
Unjust Enrichment not applicable for refund of unutilized ITC
|
270
|
|
255
|
Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs State of U.P. & Ors
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Principal of consistency is sacrosanct in taxation matters.
|
271
|
|
256
|
M/s. VIVO MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER CGST
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Adjudication order passed without considering binding precedent and circular suffers from error apparent on face of record
|
272
|
|
257
|
SL Lumax Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes-II, Chennai
|
Madras High Court
|
"SCN shall not be interfered in Writ" - not cast in stone principle.
|
273
|
|
258
|
Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
|
Madras High Court
|
Proceeding concluded through ASMT 12 cannot be resurrected through fresh SCN
|
274
|
|
259
|
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs State of U.P & Ors.
|
Supreme Court of India
|
Automatic vacation of stay on expiry of six months is illegal.
|
275
|
|
260
|
Thai Mookambikaa Ladies Hostel Vs. Union of India & Ors.
|
Madras High Court
|
Hostels providing accommodation and food exempted from GST under Sl.No. 12 of Notification 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate)
|
276
|
|
261
|
Bharati Cellular Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
|
Supreme Court of India
|
Mobile Telecom Service Providers not liable to deduct TDS u/s 194 H on SIM Card kits/recharge vouchers supplied to distributors
|
277
|
|
262
|
Vardhan Infrastructure vs. The Special Secretary & Ors.
|
Madras High Court
|
Powers of cross-empowerment cannot be exercised in the absence of a proper Notification under Section6
|
278
|
|
263
|
Supreme Enterprises vs Principal Commissioner of GST, North Delhi
|
Delhi High Court
|
Retrospective cancellation of registration to factor in impact of ITC to buyers of such registered dealer
|
279
|
|
264
|
Rays Power vs Superintendent of Central Tax
|
Telangana High Court
|
Once tax with interst is paid pursuant to Audit, penalty proceedings cannot be initiated.
|
280
|
|
265
|
Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari vs Union of India and Ors.
|
Bombay High Court
|
Proposal to impose Personal Penalty under Section 122 (1A) of CGST Act, 2017 is far-fetched
|
281
|
|
266
|
Ekene Godwin and Anr vs State of Tamil Nadu
|
Supreme Court
|
Examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses without recording cross-examination is contrary to law
|
282
|
|
267
|
Chamarajnagar Taluk MSPC vs Commissioner and Ors.
|
Karnataka High Court
|
Writ Petition admissible against an order in respect of which statutory appeal was dismissed on limitation
|
283
|
|
268
|
Dipankar Bhowmik vs State Of West Bengal And Ors
|
Calcutta High Court
|
Calcutta HC sets aside ex-parte order issued hurriedly after hearing the case belatedly
|
284
|
|
269
|
Blackberry India Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner CGST & Anr.
|
Delhi High Court
|
Unchallenged awards by Revenue cannot be demanded to be recovered until decided in favour of Revenue
|
285
|
|
270
|
Surendra Steels Pvt Ltd vs. The Union of India and Ors.
|
Gauhati High Court
|
Calculation of time allowed in CGST Act is to be done in accordance with
General Clauses Act
|
286
|
|
271
|
Jetibai Grandsons Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
|
Delhi High Court
|
Voluntary withdrawal of a writ and filing another writ on same grounds subsequently amounts to ‘bench hunting’
|
287
|
|
272
|
Small Scale Ice Cream Manufacturer Association & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr.
|
Chattisgarh High Court
|
Principles of reasonableness and social values enshrined in the constitution to be relevant factors while determining taxation
|
288
|
|
273
|
Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.
|
Allahabad HC
|
Confiscation of stock under Section 130 not sustainable if valuation is based on eye estimation
|
289
|
|
274
|
Nandini Shroff vs. Union of India and Ors.
|
Calcutta High Court
|
Writ jurisdiction does not permit enquiry into criminal offences
|
290
|
|
275
|
Anu Products Ltd. vs. UOI & Ors.
|
Bombay High Court
|
Recovery barred by time cannot be regularized by issuing fresh notices
|
291
|
|
276
|
Pace Setters Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., vs. UOI
|
Delhi High Court
|
Levy of tax under RCM not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
|
292
|
|
277
|
Anishia Chandrakanth & Ors. vs. The Superintendent of Central Tax & Central Excise & Ors.
|
Kerala High Court
|
Non-filing of GSTR 9C with GSTR 9 attracts general penalty not late fee
|
293
|
|
278
|
Venus Jewel vs. Union of India & Ors.
|
Bombay High Court
|
GST refund can’t be denied solely due to non-compatibility of data between Customs and GST Department
|
294
|
|
279
|
Satyam Castings Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. Deputy Director, DGGI, Bhubaneswar and Anr.
Activate to view larger image,
|
Orissa High Court
|
Expression ‘same subject matter’ barring parallel proceedings u/Sec. 6 (2) (b) of GST Act akin to ‘cause of action’
|
295
|
|
280
|
The Joint Commissioner of ST (I&E) vs. Sasi Pathirakunnath
|
Kerala High Court
|
Fine imposed in confiscation proceedings can be reduced by the first Appellate Authority
|
296
|
|
281
|
Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
|
Bombay High Court
|
Non-Applicability of Tax on Ocean Freight for imports applies to FOB contracts also - Bombay HC
|
297
|
|
282
|
Amit Pandey vs UOI & Ors.
|
Patna High Court
|
PIL filed challenging various provisions of GST quashed on the ground of absence of locus standi
|
298
|
|
283
|
Prasanna Karunakar Shetty vs The State of Maharashtra
|
Bombay High Court
|
Recovery proceedings cannot be initiated against the former director merely because recovery is not possible against the company
|
299
|
|
284
|
Pr. Commissioner vs N & N Traders
|
CESTAT, New Delhi
|
Discretionary power under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is to be exercised judicially
|
300
|
|
285
|
Laxmi Fine Chem vs Assistant Commissioner
|
Telangana High Court
|
ITC cannot be blocked in excess of the credit available in electronic credit ledger
|
301
|
|
286
|
Chetan Garg vs Avato Ward 105 State Goods and Service Tax and Ors
|
Delhi High Court
|
Pendency of adjudication proceedings not a reason to deny request for cancellation of registration
|
302
|
|
287
|
Sumat Gupta & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs Union of India & Ors
|
Punjab Haryana High Court
|
Belated pre-deposit before adjudication of appeal is sufficient compliance U/Sec. 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944
|
303
|
|
288
|
S.P.P. Silks vs The State Tax Officer and Anr.
|
Madras High Court
|
Pre-determination of issues robs the meaning of adjudication
|
304
|
|
289
|
Bigtree Entetainment Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Service Tax VI, Mumbai
|
CESTAT Mumbai
|
If there is no consideration, then there can be no levy of Service Tax
|
305
|
|
290
|
Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Limited v. UOI & 2 Ors
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Assesee not liable to pay interest when delay in remittance of tax was due to assesee's bank
|
306
|
|
291
|
Manjit Singh vs State of Punjab
Activate to view larger image,
|
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
HC dismisses petition filed from the “other-world” with its WIT-jurisdiction
|
307
|
|
292
|
Pramod Kumar Tomar vs. Assistant Commissioner Mundka Division Delhi West, CGST & Anr.
|
Delhi High Court
|
Date of issuance of order is excluded whilst calculating the period of Limitation
|
308
|
|
293
|
M/s. Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee vs. Union of India
|
Andhra Pradesh High Court
|
Writ, not appeal is the remedy against CESTAT Larger bench reference decisions - AP HC
|
309
|
|
294
|
Kanakia Spaces Reality Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Mumbai
|
CESTAT, Mumbair
|
Service Tax paid on cancelled bookings is eligible for refund in GST Regime
|
310
|
|
295
|
Faizal Traders Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax & Central Excise & Anr.
|
Kerala High Court
|
Kerala High Court validates the extended deadline for concluding proceedings for FY 2017-18
|
311
|
|
296
|
Mahesh Devchand Gala vs UOI & Ors
|
Bombay High Court
|
Arrest cannot be made in a routine manner on mere allegations- Bombay HC
|
312
|
|
297
|
Razack Trading Company vs The Assistant Commissioner
|
Madras High Court
|
Ineligible ITC transitioned to GST and wrongly obtained as refund liable for interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act
|
313
|
|
298
|
Roshan Sharma vs Asst. Commissioner
|
Calcutta High Court
|
Adjudicating authority to grant opportunity of cross examination when statements are relied on in adjudication
|
314
|
|
299
|
R.B. Singh and Anr. Vs. Rashmi Cement Limited and Anr.
|
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)
No. 1187 of 2023
|
GST dues not forming part of creditor’s demand notice, not recoverable in an Insolvency Resolution Process
|
315
|
|
300
|
The Principal Commissioner of Customs vs Linear Technologies India Pvt Ltd
|
Delhi High Court
|
Determination of monetary limit for filing appeals by Department is not based on cumulative of duty and penalty
|
316
|
|
301
|
Nam Estates Private Limited vs Joint Commissioner & Anr.
|
Karnataka High Court
|
HC allows refund by an “unprecedented” judgement
|
317
|
|
302
|
Rakesh Kumar Goyal vs DRI
|
P&H High Court
|
No prosecution under IPC for non- appearance to Summons
|
318
|
|
303
|
Md. Zakir Hussain vs. State of Manipur & Ors.
|
Manipur High Court
|
AI Amicus: ChatGPT’s Courtroom cameo
|
319
|
|
304
|
Ashoka Fabricast Pvt. Ltd. vs UOI
|
Rajasthan High Court
|
Cancelled registrants can be audited
|
320
|
|
305
|
Silverdoor Limited vs The Commissioners for his Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
|
Upper Tribunal, United Kingdom
|
Charges for facilitating payments to form part of principal supply
|
321
|
|
306
|
Rahul Sachan vs. The Income Tax Officer
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Pre-Conditions to initiate re-assessment under IT Act (en)lightened
|
322
|
|
307
|
Ankit Kumar Agarwal vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
|
Calcutta High Court
|
Revenue neutrality persuades the Calcutta HC to allow appeal
|
323
|
|
308
|
Commissioner Commercial Tax vs Pan Parag India Ltd.
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Transfer of IPR under Franchise agreement does not constitute ‘sale’ of IPR
|
324
|
|
309
|
Directorate of Enforcement vs. Akhilesh Singh & Ors.
|
Delhi High Court
|
Appeal against acquittal is not a continuation of proceedings
|
325
|
|
310
|
C.I.T., Delhi vs Bharti Hexacom Ltd.
|
Supreme Court of India
|
No interest during pendency of litigation - SC
|
326
|
|
311
|
CBIC GST Policy Wing Instruction No. 01/2024-GST dt. 30.05.2024
|
CBIC Instruction
|
CBIC Instructions on recovery - A curse in disguise?
|
327
|
|
312
|
Sunil Patil and Anr vs. UOI and Ors.
|
Delhi High Court
|
Timelines for seizure apply to detention also
|
328
|
|
313
|
Ace Manufacturing Systems Ltd. vs State of UP & Or
|
Allahabad High Court
|
High-speed orders hit speed-breaker Penalty struck down by Allahabad High Court
|
329
|
|
314
|
Vuram Technology Solutions Private Ltd. vs. The Additional Commissioner & Anr
|
Madras High Court
|
Revenue cannot argue against its own Circular - Madras HC
|
330
|
|
315
|
M/s. Avshesh Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors
|
Allahabad High Court
|
It is unreasonable to fix three dates of hearing at one g
|
331
|
|
316
|
Ambey Sales vs. Commissioner
|
CESTAT, Chandigarh
|
SAD Refunds-time limit of one year from payment of duty not applicable - CESTAT (LB)
|
332
|
|
317
|
Rasathe Garments vs State Tax Officer (ST
|
Madras High Court
|
No embargo for Inspecting Officer to issue SC
|
333
|
|
318
|
Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner & Anr
|
Madras High Court
|
Ineligible ITC- Section 73/74 penalty is attracted only on its utilisation
|
334
|
|
319
|
Trade Links & Ors vs. UOI & Ors.
|
Kerala High Court
|
Kerala HC resets deadline under Section 16(4) for the period 2017- 202
|
335
|
|
320
|
Nova Publications & Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs UOI and Ors
|
Punjab & Haryana High Court
|
Proceedings of Attachment should be used only as last resor
|
336
|
|
321
|
Suresh Kumar Aggarwal vs. Commissioner
|
CESTAT, Mumbai
|
Section 114AA penalty applicable to only dummy exports
|
337
|
|
322
|
MSS Food Processors v. UOI & Ors
|
Madhya Pradesh High Court
|
Alternate remedy cannot be a China wall against invocation of writ jurisdiction
|
338
|
|
323
|
The Tribunal must bridle itself from upending settled matters - Madras HC
|
Madras High Court
|
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs The Commissioner of C.Ex and ST & Ors.
|
339
|
|
324
|
Excellent Vision Technical Academy Pvt Ltd vs The State of U.P and 5 others
|
Allahabad High Court
|
Form GST INS-1 issued without 'reasons to believe' is illegal
|
340
|
|
325
|
M/s. Sudarshan Theatre 35MM vs Union of India
|
Telangana HC
|
Nroom to relax Anti-profiteering Law- Telangana HC
|
341
|
|
326
|
SKL Exports vs Deputy Commissioner & Anr
|
Madras High Court
|
Rectification process given leeway for condoning delay in filing Appeal
|
342
|
|
327
|
AMN Life Pvt Ltd vs Union of India & Others
|
Himachal Pradesh High Court
|
Circulars cannot override Rules
|
343
|
|
328
|
Moon Labels vs The Government of India and 4 others.
|
Madras High Court
|
Utilization of eligible credit cannot be denied unless the law prescribes otherwise
|
344
|
|
329
|
Hitachi Energy India Limited vs State of Karnataka & Ors.
|
Karnataka High Court
|
Amendment to Rule 108(3) of CGST Rules is effective retrospectively
|
345
|
|
330
|
Government of NCT Delhi & Anr. vs M/s. BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
|
Supreme Court of India
|
Public Interest overrules ironclad rule of "Res Judicata"
|
346
|
|
331
|
Fabricship Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India and ors
|
Bombay High Court
|
Section 129(1) (a)- Higher penalty applicable only when movement of goods is for a "Taxable Supply"
|
347
|
|
332
|
Arya Cotton Industries & Anr. vs UOI & Anr.
|
Gujarat High Court
|
Amounts deposited in Electronic Cash Ledger is Advance Tax
|
348
|
|
333
|
Sunil Kumar K vs The State Tax Officer & ors.
|
Kerala High Court
|
Common Portal- A "one stop destination"
|
349
|
|
334
|
Stalwart Alloys India Pvt Ltd. vs UOI & Ors.
|
Punjab & Haryana High Court
|
Section 6(2)(b) of GST Act bars action by both State and Centre on same subject matter for different periods also
|
350
|
