Facts:The respondent-assessee challenged a show cause notice dated 29.07.2024 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act demanding tax, interest and penalty for the financial years 2017-18 to 2023-24 through a single consolidated notice. The Single Judge permitted the authority to pass an order for FY 2017-18 within limitation and directed separate adjudication orders for the remaining years. The department filed a writ appeal challenging that direction.Court Decision:The Division Bench held that under Section 74 of the CGST Act the determination of tax is linked to the financial year to which the alleged tax evasion relates, and the limitation for passing adjudication orders is computed separately for each financial year from the due date of filing the annual return.The Court held that although the statute does not expressly prohibit issuance of a consolidated show cause notice, the proper officer should ideally issue separate notices for different financial years because the limitation for adjudication differs for each year. A consolidated notice covering several financial years could prejudice the assessee by curtailing the effective time available for defence and evidence.Finding no error in the reasoning of the Single Judge, the Court dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the direction permitting separate adjudication orders for each financial year after granting opportunity of hearing.Cases Referred by Court: CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd., (1976) 4 SCC 435
Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) & Anr. vs Lakshmi Mobile Accessories 05-02-2025
Facts:The respondent-assessee challenged a show cause notice dated 29.07.2024 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act demanding tax, interest and penalty for the financial years 2017-18 to 2023-24 through a single consolidated notice. The Single Judge permitted the authority to pass an order for FY 2017-18 within limitation and directed separate adjudication orders for the remaining years. The department filed a writ appeal challenging that direction.Court Decision:The Division Bench held that under Section 74 of the CGST Act the determination of tax is linked to the financial year to which the alleged tax evasion relates, and the limitation for passing adjudication orders is computed separately for each financial year from the due date of filing the annual return.The Court held that although the statute does not expressly prohibit issuance of a consolidated show cause notice, the proper officer should ideally issue separate notices for different financial years because the limitation for adjudication differs for each year. A consolidated notice covering several financial years could prejudice the assessee by curtailing the effective time available for defence and evidence.Finding no error in the reasoning of the Single Judge, the Court dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the direction permitting separate adjudication orders for each financial year after granting opportunity of hearing.Cases Referred by Court: CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd., (1976) 4 SCC 435
Facts:The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 29.07.2024 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act proposing tax, interest and penalty for the financial years 2018-19 to 2023-24. The petitioner apprehended that the authorities would pass a composite adjudication order covering multiple financial years and sought direction for passing separate orders and granting opportunity for cross-examination.Court Decision:The Court held that at the stage of show cause notice there was no material to assume that the authorities would adopt a procedure contrary to law or deny opportunity of hearing. Therefore, interference with the show cause notice was not warranted.However, considering the limitation period for passing order for the financial year 2017-18, the Court permitted the authority to pass an order for that year within the prescribed limitation after granting opportunity of hearing. For the subsequent financial years, the Court observed that separate adjudication orders ought to be issued for each year even if the show cause notice is composite, and directed the authority to pass separate orders after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.Cases Referred by Court:· W.P.(C) No.35156 of 2024 (Kerala High Court)
Lakshmi Mobile Accessories vs Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) & Anr. 28-01-2025
Facts:The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 29.07.2024 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act proposing tax, interest and penalty for the financial years 2018-19 to 2023-24. The petitioner apprehended that the authorities would pass a composite adjudication order covering multiple financial years and sought direction for passing separate orders and granting opportunity for cross-examination.Court Decision:The Court held that at the stage of show cause notice there was no material to assume that the authorities would adopt a procedure contrary to law or deny opportunity of hearing. Therefore, interference with the show cause notice was not warranted.However, considering the limitation period for passing order for the financial year 2017-18, the Court permitted the authority to pass an order for that year within the prescribed limitation after granting opportunity of hearing. For the subsequent financial years, the Court observed that separate adjudication orders ought to be issued for each year even if the show cause notice is composite, and directed the authority to pass separate orders after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.Cases Referred by Court:· W.P.(C) No.35156 of 2024 (Kerala High Court)
Facts :The appellant challenged an assessment order on the ground that it was only uploaded on the GST portal and not otherwise communicated. It was contended that the portal was not notified for uploading orders and therefore service was invalid. The appellant claimed lack of knowledge due to delayed access to the portal. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition directing the appellant to avail alternate remedy.Court Decision:The Division Bench held that Section 169 expressly permits service of orders by making them available on the common portal. It ruled that once a portal is notified under Section 146, it can be used for all statutory functions including communication of orders. The Court found that the appellant had in fact accessed and downloaded the order, and delay was attributable to the appellant. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the Single Judge was upheld.
Sunil Kumar K v. State Tax Officer & Ors. 08-07-2024
Facts :The appellant challenged an assessment order on the ground that it was only uploaded on the GST portal and not otherwise communicated. It was contended that the portal was not notified for uploading orders and therefore service was invalid. The appellant claimed lack of knowledge due to delayed access to the portal. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition directing the appellant to avail alternate remedy.Court Decision:The Division Bench held that Section 169 expressly permits service of orders by making them available on the common portal. It ruled that once a portal is notified under Section 146, it can be used for all statutory functions including communication of orders. The Court found that the appellant had in fact accessed and downloaded the order, and delay was attributable to the appellant. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the Single Judge was upheld.
Facts:The petitioners, registered dealers under GST, were denied Input Tax Credit despite possessing valid invoices, proof of payment, and receipt of goods/services. In several cases, suppliers either failed to remit tax or failed to reflect transactions in returns, leading to denial of ITC under Section 16(2)(c). The petitioners challenged the provisions as imposing an impossible burden on recipients and also contested the time limitation under Section 16(4). Multiple writ petitions raising similar issues were heard together. Court Decision:The High Court upheld the validity of Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the GST Act. The Court held that Input Tax Credit is not an absolute right but a statutory entitlement subject to conditions prescribed under the Act. It was held that fulfillment of all conditions under Section 16(2), including actual payment of tax to the Government, is mandatory for availing ITC. The Court further held that the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) is valid and enforceable, and ITC cannot be claimed beyond the stipulated period. Cases Referred by Court:• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. • Jayam & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner • ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
M. Trade Links v. Union of India & Ors. 04-06-2024
Facts:The petitioners, registered dealers under GST, were denied Input Tax Credit despite possessing valid invoices, proof of payment, and receipt of goods/services. In several cases, suppliers either failed to remit tax or failed to reflect transactions in returns, leading to denial of ITC under Section 16(2)(c). The petitioners challenged the provisions as imposing an impossible burden on recipients and also contested the time limitation under Section 16(4). Multiple writ petitions raising similar issues were heard together. Court Decision:The High Court upheld the validity of Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the GST Act. The Court held that Input Tax Credit is not an absolute right but a statutory entitlement subject to conditions prescribed under the Act. It was held that fulfillment of all conditions under Section 16(2), including actual payment of tax to the Government, is mandatory for availing ITC. The Court further held that the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) is valid and enforceable, and ITC cannot be claimed beyond the stipulated period. Cases Referred by Court:• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. • Jayam & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner • ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
Facts :The assessee, a registered dealer dealing in garments, claimed input tax credit on purchases supported by invoices. The audit authority disallowed ITC under Section 39(1) alleging that transactions with certain dealers were not genuine and that the burden under Section 70 was not discharged. The First Appellate Authority upheld the disallowance, but the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal. The State filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the Tribunal’s order. Court Decision:The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the revision petition. It held that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 70 by producing invoices and proof of payment through banking channels, establishing genuineness of transactions. The Court further held that once transactions are proved genuine, input tax credit cannot be denied merely because the selling dealer failed to remit tax. It was also held that the statute does not permit action against the purchasing dealer for default of the selling dealer. Cases Referred by Court:• Microqual Techno Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes • Packwell Industries v. State of Karnataka
Facts :The assessee, a registered dealer dealing in garments, claimed input tax credit on purchases supported by invoices. The audit authority disallowed ITC under Section 39(1) alleging that transactions with certain dealers were not genuine and that the burden under Section 70 was not discharged. The First Appellate Authority upheld the disallowance, but the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal. The State filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the Tribunal’s order. Court Decision:The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the revision petition. It held that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 70 by producing invoices and proof of payment through banking channels, establishing genuineness of transactions. The Court further held that once transactions are proved genuine, input tax credit cannot be denied merely because the selling dealer failed to remit tax. It was also held that the statute does not permit action against the purchasing dealer for default of the selling dealer. Cases Referred by Court:• Microqual Techno Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes • Packwell Industries v. State of Karnataka
Facts :The petitioner’s goods were detained during transit through a detention order (Form GST MOV-06) on the ground that the invoice value was lower than the MRP and HSN code was wrongly mentioned. The petitioner challenged the detention contending that these grounds do not justify detention under Sections 129 or 130 of the GST Act. It was also contended that there was no discrepancy in tax rate or supporting documents accompanying the goods. The issue arose from detention at a parcel godown during movement of goods.Court Decision:The Court held that undervaluation with reference to MRP is not a valid ground for detention of goods under the GST Act. There is no statutory provision prohibiting sale of goods below MRP, and such comparison cannot justify detention. The Court further held that incorrect HSN classification, without impact on tax rate, does not warrant detention. The detention order was quashed and authorities were directed to release the goods forthwith. Directions were also issued to the Commissioner to ensure such unwarranted detentions are not repeated.
Alfa Group vs The Assistant State Tax Officer & Others 18-11-2019
Facts :The petitioner’s goods were detained during transit through a detention order (Form GST MOV-06) on the ground that the invoice value was lower than the MRP and HSN code was wrongly mentioned. The petitioner challenged the detention contending that these grounds do not justify detention under Sections 129 or 130 of the GST Act. It was also contended that there was no discrepancy in tax rate or supporting documents accompanying the goods. The issue arose from detention at a parcel godown during movement of goods.Court Decision:The Court held that undervaluation with reference to MRP is not a valid ground for detention of goods under the GST Act. There is no statutory provision prohibiting sale of goods below MRP, and such comparison cannot justify detention. The Court further held that incorrect HSN classification, without impact on tax rate, does not warrant detention. The detention order was quashed and authorities were directed to release the goods forthwith. Directions were also issued to the Commissioner to ensure such unwarranted detentions are not repeated.
