#GST

The Gujarat High Court ruled that acceptance of Form GST DRC-03A reducing principal liability to nil satisfies the Section 128A CGST Act payment condition for interest/penalty waiver, even if the original DRC-03 cited the wrong financial year. Technical errors in the initial voluntary payment form do not bar taxpayers from the amnesty scheme once the liability is extinguished.

The Gauhati HC held a Section 73(2) CGST show cause notice dated 29 Nov 2024 timely as three months remained after excluding the notice date, letting the appellant reply. This clarifies the GST notice limitation period and affects taxpayers.

The Calcutta High Court held that, under Rule 86A CGST, GST authorities must provide a pre-decisional hearing before blocking a taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger, reinforcing natural-justice safeguards. Accordingly, the order freezing Rs 4.43 crore of input tax credit was set aside, restoring the petitioner’s right to claim ITC and signalling that tax officials must follow due-process before restricting credit.

The Gujarat High Court held corporate guarantees are not a supply under the CGST Act, striking down Rule 28(2) and related CBIC circulars. Consequently, issuers of such guarantees are exempt from GST, removing the tax burden nationwide.

Gauhati High Court quashed the prohibition order on a tax consultant’s office, ruling that sealing under Section 67(4) is invalid unless the premises are actually denied access. The decision safeguards GST-registered businesses from arbitrary closure by tax authorities.

Kerala High Court holds that work contracts executed after the GST rollout (1.7.2017) cannot be subjected to both Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) and GST, preventing double taxation. The ruling mandates re-examination of disputed bill calculations for government contractors, ensuring compliance with the single-tax regime under GST.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that contractors executing state projects must be reimbursed for additional GST liability arising after the GST regime's 2017 rollout, when contracts were originally priced under VAT. This sets a critical precedent for public works contractors nationwide, affirming that fiscal shifts cannot be unilaterally borne by private parties without contractual recourse or state compensation.

Bombay High Court rules that GST authorities cannot initiate proceedings under Section 74 CGST Act against a company that ceased to exist post-amalgamation. The judgment clarifies that Section 87 CGST Act does not empower tax authorities to pursue demands against successor entities, quashing a Rs. 42.65 crore demand and reinforcing corporate legal continuity principles.

Karnataka High Court holds that an arbitral tribunal's failure to consider RA Bills showing 18% GST inclusion in non-tendered works (valued at ₹9.65 crores) constitutes patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The ruling reinforces that tribunals must account for tax implications in contract disputes, impacting construction and commercial arbitration.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that GST assessment orders lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN) are invalid, violating due process. The court set aside impugned orders, directing authorities to reissue notices with proper DIN compliance and mandating a 20% deposit of disputed tax before fresh adjudication, reinforcing procedural safeguards in digital tax administration.

Allahabad High Court rules that delayed constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal justifies extending the appeal period under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act until June 30, 2026. The court treats prior deposits as compliance, ensuring appellants are not prejudiced by administrative delays.

ITAT Bangalore rules that GST refunds are not taxable if the assessee follows the exclusive accounting method, bypassing the profit & loss account. The decision reinforces that consistent accounting practices prevail over revenue adjustments, impacting tax assessments for businesses claiming refunds.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that GST registration revocation must be reconsidered if a taxpayer deposits wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) with proof. The tax authority is directed to decide afresh within four weeks of representation, ensuring procedural fairness in GST compliance.

Uttarakhand HC quashed a GST ex parte assessment served solely via the GST portal after the taxpayer's registration was cancelled, ruling it violates Section 169 of the CGST Act and principles of natural justice. The court directed fresh proceedings with a mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4), setting a precedent for proper service of notices in tax disputes.

Jharkhand High Court rules that delay in filing a statutory appeal under GST laws precludes relief under Article 226, even if the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled and later restored. The court rejected the plea of sufficient cause, emphasizing that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot bypass limitation periods.