| CGST Act, 2017 |
Sec 9 |
Commissioner of Central Tax v. Sadguru Infratech (P.) Ltd. |
Click Here |
Incremental GST liability reimbursement due to the pre/post-GST rollout transition is a purely contractual issue between the contracting parties. It does not bind tax authorities, and contractual terms cannot alter statutory tax collection provisions. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Sec 9 |
Office of Principal Commissioner GST and Central Excise v. R. Chandrashekar |
Click Here |
Directions to reimburse differential GST on pre-GST tax-inclusive government contracts executed after 01.07.2017 apply strictly to the concerned Employers. The Revenue authorities cannot be made party to such recalculations. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Sec 9 & 11 |
Guru and Co. v. Union of India |
Click Here |
GST notifications must strictly conform to GST Council recommendations. Inserting the phrase “enforceable right in court of law” to tax unregistered pulse brands exceeded the Council’s 21st meeting mandate and was held ultra vires. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Sec 39 |
Office of Principal Commissioner GST and Central Excise v. R. Chandrashekar |
Click Here |
Ongoing reimbursement disputes with Employers do not absolve a contractor from their statutory liability to pay GST. Courts cannot permit the filing of revised returns or waive interest/penalties contrary to statutory timelines. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Sec 74 |
Southern Steels v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
Click Here |
Fictitious ITC via circular trading discovered during an inspection prima facie justifies invoking the extended period of limitation. The threshold for invoking extended limitations under GST is lower than under previous indirect tax regimes. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Sec 74 |
Southern Steels v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
Click Here |
Post-remand DRC-07 orders passed without a prior DRC-01 Show Cause Notice violate natural justice and must be set aside. Conversely, parallel proceedings that followed the proper sequence (DRC-01A followed by DRC-01) suffer no infirmity. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Sec 79 |
Commissioner of Central Tax v. Sadguru Infratech (P.) Ltd. |
Click Here |
Garnishee action for interest on belated returns is sustainable. Interest on delayed tax payments arises by statutory mandate and cannot be waived or reduced by judicial directions in the absence of specific legal provisions. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Sec 79 |
GSPR Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal |
Click Here |
Initiating recovery actions after the mandatory pre-deposit has been paid for a pending appeal violates the statutory scheme. While the garnishee freeze continues until disposal, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Sec 107 |
GSPR Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal |
Click Here |
Dismissing an appeal as time-barred is unjustified if the order was only served on an accountant who failed to inform the assessee. Since the pre-deposit was paid upon learning of recovery, sufficient cause exists to condone the delay. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Sec 164 |
Guru and Co. v. Union of India |
Click Here |
The GST Council holds only recommending powers under Article 279A and lacks power of ratification. A subsequent ratification in the 22nd meeting cannot validate a tax levy notification that was void ab initio. |
| CGST Act, 2017 |
Sec 169 |
Tvl. Kodeeswaran Jewellers v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes |
Click Here |
Communicating an assessment order solely by uploading it to the portal without other statutory modes is insufficient for small businesses. Expecting constant portal monitoring is unreasonable; hence, an extended 15-day window to appeal on merits was granted. |
