| Section 16 |
CGST Act, 2017 |
M. Natarajan v. Proper Officer/Commercial Tax Officer |
Denial of input tax credit solely due to filing returns beyond the original statutory time limit under section 16(4) is not sustainable following the retrospective timeline relaxation introduced by section 16(5). |
Click Here |
| Section 16 |
CGST Act, 2017 |
H.R. Constructions v. Superintendent of Central Tax |
Input tax credit availment for FY 2018-19 made on 20-12-2019 is timely and valid following the statutory relaxation window extending deadlines to 30-11-2021 via section 16(5), rendering initial rejections unsustainable. |
Click Here |
| Section 29 |
CGST Act, 2017 |
Sunny Enterprises v. Union of India |
GST registration cancellations ordered via non-speaking orders containing no reasons or recorded satisfaction violate Article 14 and natural justice, making the cancellation and appellate orders quashable for fresh adjudication. |
Click Here |
| Section 73 |
CGST Act, 2017 |
TGS Trading Co. v. Superintendent |
Composite show cause notices and adjudication orders covering multiple financial years for demands not involving fraud are impermissible and unsustainable in law, rendering both notices and consequential orders quashed with liberty to issue separate notices. |
Click Here |
| Section 73 |
CGST Act, 2017 |
Fairmart v. Deputy Commissioner |
Composite proceedings covering multiple financial years for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud are impermissible per binding Division Bench decisions, warranting the quashing of notices and orders with liberty for separate yearly notices. |
Click Here |
| Section 75(4) |
CGST Act, 2017 |
Pooja Exports v. State of Punjab |
Failure to grant a personal hearing before issuing an adverse adjudication order violates the mandatory statutory requirement under section 75(4), vitiating the order and requiring de novo proceedings. |
Click Here |
| Section 73 / 107 |
CGST Act, 2017 |
Shivani Enterprise v. Union of India |
Writ petitions against scrap trading proceedings for alleged fraudulent ITC are rightly rejected when typographical SCN errors caused no breach of natural justice, documents were available, and an alternative statutory remedy under section 107 exists. |
Click Here |
| Section 107 |
CGST Act, 2017 |
Mahapuja Ltd. v. Office of the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai Central |
Writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable when records establish proper service of relied-upon documents via email, no specific prejudice is pleaded, and an effective alternative statutory appeal remedy is available under section 107. |
Click Here |
| Section 122 / 107 |
CGST Act, 2017 |
Marginmart Infosystems (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner CGST |
Writ petitions challenging penalty proceedings for wrongful ITC and non-existent recipient entities are not maintainable when an efficacious statutory appeal under section 107 is available to address both jurisdictional and procedural grounds. |
Click Here |
