| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 9 |
Luna Chemical Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India |
Leasehold Rights Transfer: Assignment or transfer of leasehold rights in a GIDC plot to a third-party assignee constitutes a transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property under Schedule III (Clause 5) and is not a taxable supply under Schedule II. Demand held unsustainable. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 9 |
DLF Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax |
Preferential Location Charges (PLC): Subsequent Govt circular dated 11-10-2024 clarified that PLC is integral to construction services. This clarification operates retrospectively and binds authorities; contrary adverse orders quashed. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 29 |
G.B. Traders v. Union of India |
Registration Cancellation: Registration was cancelled because the business was closed due to the proprietor’s illness. Cancelling and refusing revocation without considering these written submissions breached natural justice. Set aside for a fresh hearing. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 29 |
Tvl. El Tech Power System (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
Suspension of Registration: Suspending registration via Form GST REG-17 merely because a cancellation SCN was issued held unwarranted. Suspension quashed; cancellation proceedings to be decided per Suguna Cut Piece Center guidelines. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 30 |
Tadikamalla Prabhudas Contractor v. Deputy State Tax Officer |
Revocation Application: Where registration was cancelled for non-filing and the portal restricted a late revocation application, the petitioner was permitted to file the application manually within one week for the authority to decide on merits. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 54 |
Techno Waxchem (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India |
Refund vs. Omitted Rule: Exporter took duty-free inputs under Advance Authorisation. Refund proceedings were initiated under Rule 96(10). Since Rule 96(10) was omitted without a saving clause, Sec 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply, and orders based on it stand quashed. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 73 |
Amit Engineers v. Union of India |
SCN vs. Advance Ruling: A show cause notice was issued despite an unchallenged, valid, and binding Advance Ruling on the issue. Forcing the petitioner to face proceedings was unjustified; the SCN was held non-est and quashed. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 73 |
Corning Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax |
Discriminatory Demand: Revenue previously granted exporter status/refunds to the petitioner on identical facts. Issuing a tax demand for other periods without any distinguishing facts or law was held discriminatory and quashed. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 74 |
Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Union of India |
Proceedings against Non-Existent Entity: SCN and orders were issued in the name of an amalgamating entity post an NCLT-approved merger. Continuing proceedings against a non-existent entity is void ab initio and lacks jurisdiction. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 75 |
Sarthak Earthmovers and Builders v. State of U.P |
Natural Justice (Ex-Parte): Dealer was assessed ex-parte after failing to respond to notices. Claiming prejudice because the previous accountant’s contact info was registered on the portal was rejected; service was proper, so no violation of natural justice occurred. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 83 |
Sri Kavithalaya Steels v. Appellate Authority/Deputy Commissioner (ST) |
Provisional Attachment: Bank account was provisionally attached. Lifting of attachment was permitted conditionally upon the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax while pursuing the appeal, provided there were no other arrears. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 100 |
Giri Transport Company v. Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling |
Maintainability of Writ: Interlocutory order condoning delay in filing an appeal against an advance ruling was challenged via writ. Since the appeal was within statutory outer limits, the writ was held not maintainable; petitioner must argue on merits. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 107 |
Sri Kavithalaya Steels v. Appellate Authority/Deputy Commissioner (ST) |
Pre-Deposit for Appeal: Petitioner challenged an assessment and rectification rejection without having replied to the original SCN. Permitted to appeal before the Appellate Authority subject to depositing an additional 25% pre-deposit. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 112 |
Eversource Energy Services v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes |
GSTAT Functionality: Writ was filed against a Sec. 74 order because GSTAT was not constituted. Since the Department has now notified Tribunal functionality and timelines, writ jurisdiction is unwarranted; petitioner must deposit the mandatory pre-deposit and appeal to GSTAT. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 169 |
AWE Global Logistics v. State of U.P. |
Service of Notice: An SCN under Sec. 73 was served solely via portal upload after the registration was cancelled and business stopped. Service held invalid; order quashed with liberty to revenue to serve proper notice afresh. |
Click Here |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Sec. 169 |
Sarthak Earthmovers and Builders v. State of U.P |
Service of Notice: Notices sent through the registered email and mobile number provided by the assessee during registration are legally valid communication modes. The duty to update contact details rests strictly on the assessee. |
Click Here |
