| Section 16 |
Santu Das v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & C. EX, Chandannagore Division |
Statutory amendment to Section 16(5) retrospectively extended time; returns filed for FY 2018-19 before November 30, 2021 were valid, and ITC cannot be denied on grounds of delayed filing. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 16 |
Santu Das v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & C. EX, Chandannagore Division |
Where ITC denial involves disputed facts (such as GSTR-2A/9 mismatches, supplier insolvency, or alleged non-filing), the matter requires fresh examination by the proper officer. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 16 |
Bhardwaj Construction v. Union of India |
Where ITC was denied as time-barred but the taxpayer claims benefit of retrospective amendments, the appropriate remedy is seeking rectification under paragraph 3.5 of Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 |
Reberoshine International (OPC) (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax |
The proper officer is empowered to suspend registration during cancellation proceedings and cancel retrospectively under Section 29(2); challenging a pending SCN via writ petition is premature. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 |
JK Technology v. Deputy State Tax Officer |
Cancelling a registration on grounds (non-furnishing of returns) not mentioned in the original SCN (which alleged fraud) violates natural justice; cancellation order quashed. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 |
Santu Das v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & C. EX, Chandannagore Division |
A tax demand based on a GSTR-1/3B mismatch cannot be sustained without factual verification when the taxpayer claims the short payment was already discharged via DRC-03. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 |
Santu Das v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & C. EX, Chandannagore Division |
When the principal tax demand is set aside for re-adjudication, any consequential enhanced penalty cannot survive and must also be remanded. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 75 |
WFB Baird and Company India (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer I |
Where an SCN identifies excess ITC claims without alleging fraud or suppression, proceedings must be initiated under Section 73 instead of Section 74. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 |
DG Anti Profiteering v. Merit Magnum Construction |
Project completion occurs only upon the actual grant of an Occupancy Certificate (OC), not on application; ITC availed until the OC grant must be considered for anti-profiteering. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 |
DG Anti Profiteering v. Merit Magnum Construction |
Since post-OC sales are not taxable supplies and ITC is inadmissible, anti-profiteering liability applies strictly up to the date of the Occupancy Certificate. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 |
DG Anti Profiteering v. Merit Magnum Construction |
Anti-profiteering in real estate is reasonably quantified by comparing pre-GST and post-GST ITC-to-purchase ratios up to the OC date and allocating per sq. ft. benefits to buyers. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 |
DG Anti Profiteering v. Merit Magnum Construction |
Where homebuyers are identifiable, Rule 133(3)(b) mandates a direct refund of the profiteered amount with 18% interest; consumer welfare fund deposits cannot be used as a shortcut. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 171 |
DG Anti Profiteering v. Merit Magnum Construction |
Penalty under Section 171(3A) is prospective (w.e.f. 01.01.2020) and cannot be levied retrospectively for anti-profiteering periods prior to that date. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
