| Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 16 |
Apollo India Services LLP v. State of Maharashtra |
Click Here |
An appellate order denying an export refund solely for non-filing of a reply, without recording specific findings on merits, is a non-speaking order and must be set aside for fresh consideration. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 16 |
Vellaram Kunnumal Prabeesh v. Superintendent, Central Tax and Central Excise |
Click Here |
The non-obstante clause in Section 16(5) overrides the time limitation contained in Section 16(4). Denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for returns filed within the Section 16(5) cut-off is unsustainable. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 54 |
Triune Project (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of SGST Department of Trade Department of Trade and Taxes Delhi |
Click Here |
Persistent non-compliance and eventual rejection of a sanctioned refund with interest, despite explicit court orders and ongoing contempt proceedings, is legally unsustainable. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 54 |
GHS Traders v. Union of India |
Click Here |
Where authorities repeatedly issue deficiency memos instead of adjudicating a refund claim on merits, a fresh application must be filed, with the limitation period calculated from the date of the first filing. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 69 |
Pradeep Goyal v. State of U.P. |
Click Here |
Continued custody is unwarranted and bail is to be granted where applicants are implicated in a bogus registration racket solely based on co-accused statements, with no incriminating material recovered. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 73 |
Balasubramanian v. State Tax Officer |
Click Here |
GST show cause notices and assessment orders initiated and concluded in the name of a deceased proprietor are a absolute nullity, as the defect goes to the root of the jurisdiction. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 73 |
Janardan Panda v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax & GST |
Click Here |
Passing an assessment order and a subsequent rectification order without affording a personal hearing requested via Form DRC-06 violates principles of natural justice and necessitates fresh adjudication. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 73 |
Dhani Loans and Services Ltd. v. State Tax Officer |
Click Here |
An assessment order passed without considering prior ITC reversals and RCM payments that reconcile GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B must be set aside to give the assessee a fresh opportunity. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 107 |
Vishwas Enterprises v. Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Goods and Service Tax |
Click Here |
Though the Appellate Authority cannot condone a 720-day delay under Section 107, the statutory limitation can be relaxed under Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226) due to severe financial hardship. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 107 |
South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise |
Click Here |
Writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable against independent statutory interpretations in Orders-in-Original when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 is fully available. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 107 |
Dinesh Dnyandeorao Pawade v. State of Maharashtra |
Click Here |
Rejection of a manual appeal filing is unsustainable if the digital portal failed to generate the required DRC-07 summary, as the proviso to Rule 108(1) expressly permits manual filing in such anomalies. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 125 |
Caussa Tec Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
Click Here |
Where a specific late fee is already prescribed and leviable for delayed filing of returns, the authority cannot double-jeopardize the assessee by imposing a residual general penalty under Section 125. |
