| 16 |
Shamsudheen A.K. v. State Tax Officer |
Where returns for Feb & March 2019 were filed by 12.11.2019, the limitation under Section 16(4) does not apply due to the overriding non-obstante clause of Section 16(5); the petitioner remains eligible for ITC subject to other entitlements. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 54 |
Goodluck India Ltd. v. Union of India |
The omission of Rule 96(10) w.e.f. 08.10.2024 applies to pending IGST export refund proceedings as no saving clause was introduced; GST Council recommendations for prospective operation are advisory and do not bind rule-making authorities. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 73 |
Brahmaputra Tele Productions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India |
An adjudication order for FY 2018-19 passed on 30.04.2024 without a valid State Section 168A extension notification is barred by limitation (expired on 31.12.2023) and unsustainable in law. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Assam GST Act |
| 75 |
Brahmaputra Tele Productions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India |
An adjudication order passed in violation of Section 75(6) format and without providing a mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) is vitiated by procedural breach and liable to be set aside. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 107 |
Adinath Rice Mill v. Union of India |
Where an appeal under Section 74 was filed within the amnesty window of Notification No. 53/2023 with requisite pre-deposit, the appellate authority erred in rejecting it on limitation grounds; matter remanded for decision on merits. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 137 |
Manoj Bansal v. Deputy Director, DGGI |
Prosecution launched solely against the Director for alleged wrongful ITC availment without arraigning the company as an accused is not maintainable, as company arraignment is a prerequisite for vicarious liability. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 171 |
DGAP v. Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Ltd. |
Anti-profiteering proceedings were closed where pre- and post-GST credit ratios were nearly identical up to the final occupancy certificate, establishing that no additional ITC benefit accrued to be passed on to homebuyers. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
| 171 |
DGAP v. PRL Developers |
Anti-profiteering allegations were dismissed where the developer successfully demonstrated (as verified by DGAP) that the entire, and even excess, computed additional ITC benefit was duly passed on to eligible pre-GST homebuyers. |
Click Here |
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 |
