| Section 6 |
Sutlej Textiles and Industries Ltd. v. Union of India |
Where exporters challenged retrospective denial of IGST refund under Rule 96(10) as amended, and Rule 96(10) was subsequently omitted without a saving clause, pending refund applications must be considered afresh, and no proceeding can rely on the omitted Rule 96(10) as affirmed by the Goodluck India ruling and CBIC’s acceptance. |
Click Here |
General Clauses Act, 1897 |
| Section 9 |
Krishna Veer Yadav v. ARSS Sips (JV) |
Where a registered JV performed various construction services for Railways including earthworks and bridges and paid GST at 12 percent, but failed to provide structural and billing documentation to establish the supplies as a composite works contract linked to immovable property, classification as general construction under SAC 9954 at 18 percent was correct and concessional rate was not available. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 15 |
Bahadur Singh v. Himanshu |
Where interception yielded undocumented readymade garments without invoices or e-way bills, and in absence of contemporary commercial invoices or traceable buyers, Proper Officer’s market-based valuation using quality parameters and wholesale averages was held rational and legally sustainable, as it conformed to statutory provisions and effectively safeguarded public revenue, making the appellant’s challenge to valuation methodology meritless. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 29 |
Shrawan Singh Devda v. Union of India |
Where registered proprietor in construction sector defaulted in filing GST returns for six months, and registration was cancelled effective within default period following SCN, such cancellation was valid as retrospective effect arose within violation period, required no separate reasons or fresh SCN, and natural justice was satisfied since petitioner failed to reply to the issued notice. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 |
EMC Ltd. v. State Tax Officer |
Where petitioner corporate debtor, under liquidation, challenged GST demand for period after initiation of CIRP and post going-concern sale under IBC, such sale carried both assets and liabilities and clean slate principle did not apply to going-concern sales, hence purchaser remains liable for past and moratorium-period GST dues, with case remitted for fresh adjudication under Section 85. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 |
Sharma Transport Agency v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax |
Where show cause notice under section 73 was uploaded only in ‘Additional Notice and Orders’ tab on portal without separate intimation, resulting in ex parte adjudication, such action violated natural justice as it prevented a reply, thus show cause notice, adjudication order and recovery notice were quashed with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings with due opportunity to reply and personal hearing. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 |
Shri Ganpati Carring Corp v. State of Uttar Pradesh |
Where goods transport partnership firm failed to file reply to scrutiny notice and was denied personal hearing in DRC-01 show cause, absence of reply did not extinguish right to personal hearing, adjudication without fixing hearing vitiated proceedings, thus orders of adjudication and appellate rejection were set aside and fresh hearing directed from post-notice stage. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 73 |
Innominds Software (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax |
Where assessee availed ITC on input services for inter-State SEZ supplies but reported IGST credit under CGST and SGST in GSTR-3B, and IGST appeared in GSTR-2A, with all conditions except tax payment undisputed and revenue providing no proof of non-payment, refusal of ITC on reporting error alone was unsustainable, so denial of credit, demand, interest and penalty was unjustified. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 107 |
Shrawan Singh Devda v. Union of India |
Where petitioner filed appeal beyond statutory limitation and beyond condonable period, Appellate Authority rightly dismissed appeal as time-barred, and writ remedy cannot be invoked to bypass such express statutory bar, unless there is a manifest jurisdictional error or demonstrated gross breach of natural justice, which was not shown in present case, thus, claim was to be rejected since structured remedies existed and fresh registration could be sought. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 129 |
Bahadur Singh v. Himanshu |
Where a vehicle carried goods in transit with completely unrelated documents, no e-way bill, and subsequent invoices to unregistered buyers without any verifiable pre-existing record, and ownership claims surfaced only after seizure, action and penalty under section 129(1)(b) against transporter was proper, as liability could not shift without valid contemporaneous documents at interception. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 129 |
Bahadur Singh v. Himanshu |
Where vehicle intercepted in transit carried unmanifested readymade garments without any valid invoices, delivery challans, or e-way bills, and all documents produced related to unrelated goods or other consignments, such transport violated statutory requirements, justifying detention and penalty, with subsequent attempts to validate goods by email invoices or claims of document swap being unsubstantiated and rightly rejected. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 169 |
OSM Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax |
Where assessment order was passed ex parte as notice and communications were served only by upload on GST portal, petitioner remained unaware and no reply was filed, officer ought to have used other statutory modes of service when no response, and order passed without affording personal hearing was set aside for fresh decision with hearing opportunity. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| Section 169 |
Adhinarayanan Muthuraj v. Assistant Commissioner ST |
Where show cause notice was served only by portal upload and petitioner claimed unawareness and did not reply, and no personal hearing was accorded before confirming ex parte order, failure to attempt alternative statutory service modes like RPAD and denial of hearing amounted to breach of natural justice, warranting setting aside of impugned order and remand for fresh adjudication with due opportunity. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
