GST INDIA Biz
GST India .biz — Case Law
Latest GST Case Law and Judgements
S.No Name Date of Order Subject Actions
111Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 19-09-2014Refund of pre-deposit along with interest under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Sections 33, 40, 45, 47-A, 56 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899) View Download

Facts :Petitioner deposited ₹34,67,438 as pre-deposit for filing appeal against stamp duty demand.The original demand order was set aside and matter remanded; ultimately no demand survived.Despite this, refund was delayed for several years and only principal amount was returned without interest.Petitioner filed writ seeking interest on the delayed refund amount.Court Decision:Retention of petitioner’s money after setting aside demand was unauthorised.Even in absence of statutory provision, interest is payable based on principles of restitution.State cannot retain money without compensating the party for deprivation of its use.Non-payment of interest while charging interest from assessee is discriminatory.Directions:Petitioner entitled to simple interest @ 8% per annum.Interest payable from date of deposit (15.12.2005) till date of refund (29.05.2014).Respondents directed to pay interest within stipulated time.General mandamus issued to State to pay interest on refunds in similar cases.Cases Referred by Court:Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. Union of IndiaUnion of India v. Oriental EnterprisesSecretary, Irrigation Dept. v. G.C. RoySham Lal Narula v. CITSouth Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P.Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CITGhaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir SinghONGC Ltd. v. Commissioner of CustomsHari Chand v. State of U.P.

Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 19-09-2014
Refund of pre-deposit along with interest under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Sections 33, 40, 45, 47-A, 56 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899)

Facts :Petitioner deposited ₹34,67,438 as pre-deposit for filing appeal against stamp duty demand.The original demand order was set aside and matter remanded; ultimately no demand survived.Despite this, refund was delayed for several years and only principal amount was returned without interest.Petitioner filed writ seeking interest on the delayed refund amount.Court Decision:Retention of petitioner’s money after setting aside demand was unauthorised.Even in absence of statutory provision, interest is payable based on principles of restitution.State cannot retain money without compensating the party for deprivation of its use.Non-payment of interest while charging interest from assessee is discriminatory.Directions:Petitioner entitled to simple interest @ 8% per annum.Interest payable from date of deposit (15.12.2005) till date of refund (29.05.2014).Respondents directed to pay interest within stipulated time.General mandamus issued to State to pay interest on refunds in similar cases.Cases Referred by Court:Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. Union of IndiaUnion of India v. Oriental EnterprisesSecretary, Irrigation Dept. v. G.C. RoySham Lal Narula v. CITSouth Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P.Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CITGhaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir SinghONGC Ltd. v. Commissioner of CustomsHari Chand v. State of U.P.

112Shanti Kiran India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade & Tax Department04-01-2013Denial of Input Tax Credit to purchasing dealer due to non-payment of tax by selling dealer under DVAT (Section involved: Section 9(1) and Section 9(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004) View Download

Facts :The appellant, a registered dealer, purchased goods from registered selling dealers against valid tax invoices and claimed input tax credit. The VAT authorities disallowed ITC on the ground that selling dealers had deposited disproportionately low tax and their registrations were later cancelled. The assessment orders, objection orders, and Tribunal upheld denial of ITC and imposed tax, interest, and penalty. The appellant challenged these findings before the High Court. Court Decision:The High Court held that denial of ITC was not justified in the absence of any statutory provision (during the relevant period) requiring the purchasing dealer to ensure that the selling dealer deposited tax. It held that Section 9(2) did not contain such a condition prior to insertion of clause (g), and the Tribunal’s interpretation was erroneous. The Court allowed the appeals and directed grant of input tax credit to the appellant after verification. Cases Referred by Court:•    State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company •    Althaf Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (CT) •    V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax •    Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar •    Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine v. State of Bihar •    R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills •    Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax •    George Oakes (Private) Ltd. v. State of Madras •    Commissioner of Central Excise v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal •    State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh •    J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan  

Shanti Kiran India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade & Tax Department 04-01-2013
Denial of Input Tax Credit to purchasing dealer due to non-payment of tax by selling dealer under DVAT (Section involved: Section 9(1) and Section 9(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004)

Facts :The appellant, a registered dealer, purchased goods from registered selling dealers against valid tax invoices and claimed input tax credit. The VAT authorities disallowed ITC on the ground that selling dealers had deposited disproportionately low tax and their registrations were later cancelled. The assessment orders, objection orders, and Tribunal upheld denial of ITC and imposed tax, interest, and penalty. The appellant challenged these findings before the High Court. Court Decision:The High Court held that denial of ITC was not justified in the absence of any statutory provision (during the relevant period) requiring the purchasing dealer to ensure that the selling dealer deposited tax. It held that Section 9(2) did not contain such a condition prior to insertion of clause (g), and the Tribunal’s interpretation was erroneous. The Court allowed the appeals and directed grant of input tax credit to the appellant after verification. Cases Referred by Court:•    State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company •    Althaf Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (CT) •    V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax •    Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar •    Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine v. State of Bihar •    R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills •    Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax •    George Oakes (Private) Ltd. v. State of Madras •    Commissioner of Central Excise v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal •    State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh •    J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan  

Total: 112 case laws