| Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 13 |
Expedia Online Travel Services India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Haryana |
Click Here |
Business support and software development services rendered on a cost-plus basis to overseas affiliates without end-customer privity or binding authority did not qualify as intermediary services; export conditions were met, and unutilised ITC refund with interest was admissible. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 17 |
Dhanaula Co-Op Agri. Service Society Ltd. Dhanaula v. State Tax Officer-Cum-Proper Officer |
Click Here |
Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for a cooperative agricultural society dealing in exempt cattle feed is restricted solely to common ITC on goods or services used for both taxable and exempt supplies, subject to verification and computation of common credit. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 44 |
Dhanaula Co-Op Agri. Service Society Ltd. Dhanaula v. State Tax Officer-Cum-Proper Officer |
Click Here |
Annual return GSTR-9 permits the correction of clerical errors for the respective year; demand for differential tax due to discrepancies between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 required remand to the original authority for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to explain clerical differences. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 54 |
Kedia Agro v. Principal Commissioner Hyderabad GST Commissionerate |
Click Here |
An inverted tax structure ITC refund accrued prior to 18-07-2022 cannot be denied solely because the RFD-01 application was filed after that date, as restrictions apply prospectively and accrual rights cannot be curtailed by executive circulars lacking statutory authority. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 74 |
Sanjeeb Kumar Dehuri v. Mukesh Kumar Kakani |
Click Here |
Where an FMCG retailer delayed filing returns but subsequently filed all pending returns, paid tax mainly via ITC along with interest, and showed no wilful misstatement, fraud provisions under Section 74 were inapplicable, justifying a reduced penalty under non-fraud treatment. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 74 |
Sain Medicaments (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax |
Click Here |
Invoking fraud-based demands without setting out foundational facts, evidence of wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts is untenable, warranting the setting aside of the impugned order. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 75 |
Sanjeeb Kumar Dehuri v. Mukesh Kumar Kakani |
Click Here |
Only the proper officer holds jurisdiction to determine penalties under non-fraud provisions; an appellate authority cannot directly modify and determine a non-fraud penalty, necessitating remand for proper redetermination. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 122 |
Sain Medicaments (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax |
Click Here |
Adjudicating penalties under fraud-based clauses when the show-cause notice proposed non-fraud penalties breaches the statutory bar against going beyond show-cause notices, rendering the penalty order self-contradictory and unsustainable. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 122 |
Shekhar Basappa Wali v. Shrinivasa Traders |
Click Here |
Penalty for issuing fake invoices without actual supply was validly imposed where registrations were cancelled, vehicle details on e-way bills were false, and key banking records were withheld. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 122 |
Shekhar Basappa Wali v. Shrinivasa Traders |
Click Here |
Deleting penalties for falsifying records and altering e-way bill details based on absence of specific offences or reliance on CBIC circulars is unjustified since statutory penal provisions prevail. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 129 |
Ajendra Kumar Tripathi v. Bajaj Enterprises |
Click Here |
Cumulative facts establishing tax evasion—such as weight discrepancies, supplier mismatches, sequential e-way bills from different GSTINs for a single invoice, and undeclared loading locations—justify goods detention and penalty. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 129 |
Ravish Kumar Singh v. Mani Ply |
Click Here |
When a vehicle is intercepted with excess goods, penalties under detention provisions can be imposed only on the specific quantity of goods found without valid documentation, provided no fictitious overall transaction is established. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 140 |
Sain Medicaments (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax |
Click Here |
Procedural portal failures preventing the filing of pre-GST returns cannot extinguish vested rights to carry forward undisputed CENVAT credit via TRAN-1, provided substantial compliance is met at the earliest opportunity. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 140 |
Ashwani Kumar Sharma v. Bhagat Deepak Kumar |
Click Here |
Disallowing transitional credit citing single invoice entries without verifying attached annexures detailing multiple underlying invoices is unwarranted and requires proper verification by the original authority. |
| Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
Section 140 |
Ashwani Kumar Sharma v. Bhagat Deepak Kumar |
Click Here |
Section 140(2) read with Rule 117 allows the transition of entire unavailed CENVAT credit on capital goods received prior to the GST regime, irrespective of prior non-availment due to pending inspections. |
