Stay updated
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Micro Labs Limited held that distribution of common ITC through cross-charge mechanism by raising invoices under Section 31 of the CGST Act is permissible, and any order passed in disregard of the CBIC’s Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST dated July 17, 2023 is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.
The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Deutsche Cars Pvt. Ltd. held that mere payment of penalty under protest does not conclude proceedings under Section 129(5) of the GST Act, and the Proper Officer is mandatorily required to pass a reasoned order after considering the reply of the assessee.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Anand and Anand (Law Firm) held that the Appellate Authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017 does not possess the power to remand matters to the adjudicating authority, and therefore the appellate orders remitting the matter for reconsideration were unsustainable in law.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. held that any pre deposit made under the VAT regime by debiting ITC must be refunded in cash after the implementation of GST.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tuesonpower International (P.) Ltd. permitted the video recording during summon inquiry under Section 70 of the the CGST Act and also allowed the petitioner to be accompanied by an advocate at a visible but inaudible distance considering the petitioner’s cancer treatment and willingness to assist in the process and investigation.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ramkrishna Banerjee held that uploading notices and orders on the GST portal under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab cannot be construed as proper service and violation of the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act renders the adjudication order susceptible to challenge.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sachde Roadlines quashed the proceedings as all the notices, show cause notice, and orders were sent to the old address, even when the Petitioner informed about the updated new address in GST registration, stating that such failures violated principles of natural justice, thus directed fresh proceedings.
A Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body constituted to adjudicate disputes within a specialised domain. Unlike conventional courts, tribunals are designed to combine judicial independence with subject-matter expertise.
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) in M/s ITI Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C)/150/2024 dated March 20, 2026] set aside the order dated April 30, 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), Dimapur Division under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) for Financial Year 2018–19 on two grounds: ..
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court, in the case of M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. examined the prevalent connection between Input Tax Credit (ITC) and Income Tax depreciation, particularly considering the case of banking industries, Financial Companies, Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs). The Court addressed this issue in the specific context of banking companies, financial institutions, and NBFCs, and held that claiming depreciation on the unavailed portion of the tax credit does not disentitle the assessee from claiming ITC on the remaining portion, where no depreciation has been claimed.