#GST Compliance

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that GST registration cannot be cancelled solely for non-filing of returns without first granting the taxpayer a fair chance to cure the default. This reinforces that administrative action under the CGST Act must comply with natural justice, protecting small businesses from abrupt penalization without procedural safeguards.

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.

Gauhati High Court rules that GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns must consider personal hardship, directing reinstatement upon compliance with pending filings and dues. The judgment reinforces that administrative actions under the CGST Act must be proportionate and just, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary cancellations.

Calcutta High Court rules that alleged GST non-compliance and unsigned invoices do not eliminate triable issues in a Rs. 6.5 crore commercial dispute, reinforcing that summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC requires clear absence of a genuine dispute. The ruling underscores the need for a full trial where factual or legal complexities persist.

The ITAT Delhi has ruled that tax authorities cannot disallow business purchases under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act merely because e-way bills were not produced, if the assessee has provided credible documentary evidence including invoices, bank records, and supplier confirmations. This sets a critical precedent for taxpayers in the manufacturing and trading sectors, reinforcing that substantive proof of transaction legitimacy outweighs procedural compliance gaps under GST.

Madras High Court ruled that Input Service Distributors cannot distribute Input Tax Credit merely upon invoice receipt but must first satisfy all conditions under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act. The judgment invalidates Rule 39(1)(a) to the extent it mandates same-month distribution, protecting businesses from forced allocation of ineligible credit and ensuring compliance with statutory entitlement.