Can ITC still be denied if the supplier later pays the GST along with interest?
The Himachal Pradesh High Court addressed this in Shivalik Containers Pvt. Ltd. (Judgment dated 24.12.2025).
Tag: Himachal Pradesh HC
GST DAILY – 418 : GST is to be levied on royalty paid for any mining concession granted by State as royalty is not a tax: HC
THE HON’BLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Bhawya Enterprises V/s Union of India, decided on 5-11-2024
GST DAILY – 349 : CGST & SGST authorities can’t initiate parallel proceedings on same subject matter; HC quashes summons issued to assessee
THE HON’BLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KundlasLohUdyog V/s State of Himachal Pradesh CMPMO No. 273 of 2024, decided on 17-9-2024
Assessment and recovery proceedings could not be sustained without consideration of factual and legal issues
The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in Hindustan Construction Company Limited held that the matter required reconsideration on factual and legal aspects and remitted it to the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, Dharamshala, directing a fresh decision by September 30, 2025, after affording opportunity of hearing.
HC quashes Order charging interest and penalty as payment made under protest by the Taxpayer cannot be construed as admission of liability
The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Shyama Power India Ltd. quashed the Impugned Order and held that reversal of ITC under protest cannot be treated as admission of liability and interest & penalty cannot be imposed on that basis.
ITC cannot be denied to the Recipient merely because of retrospective cancellation of supplier’s GSTIN without examination of genuineness of the transaction
The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in Himalaya Communication Pvt. Ltd. held that the ITC cannot be denied solely on the ground of retrospective cancellation of supplier’s GST registration without first examining the genuineness of the transaction and relevant documents.
Himachal Pradesh High Court upholds levy of GST on mining royalty payable under mining concession granted by State
The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case M/s. Lakhwinder Singh Stone Crusher v. Union of India & ors. observed and has dismissed a writ petition challenging notifications issued by the Central government for levy of GST on Royalty paid by a Mineral Concession Holder for mining concession granted by the State.
Whether demand Order can be passed without the issuance of SCN?
No, the Honorable Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Microtek Himachal Power Products (P.) Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh [CWP No. 5562 of 2023 dated June 26, 2024] disposed the writ petition and directed that the erroneous order passed with the wrong description be treated as Show Cause Notice and be further adjudicated upon after the filing of reply to the deemed SCN.
Lawgics – Judgment No. 178
Section 6(2)(b) prohibits the initiation of parallel proceedings by State and Central authorities on the same subject matter.
Once a proceeding is initiated by State Tax Authority, the DGGI cannot initiate parallel proceedings on the same subject matter i.e. regarding the same supplier.
Demand Order cannot be passed without issuance of SCN
The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Microtek Himachal Power Products (P.) Ltd. disposed the writ petition and directed that the erroneous order passed with wrong description be treated as SCN and be further adjudicated upon after the filing of reply to the deemed SCN.