#GST law

The Bombay High Court held that once the full admitted tax is paid and a Tribunal appeal is filed, Section 112(9) CGST Act automatically stays recovery of disputed interest, as Section 112(8) requires no pre-deposit. The ruling shields taxpayers from coercive recovery during appeals, confirming the stay operates without a separate application.

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.

The Delhi High Court ruled that fees charged by an advocate serving as an interim resolution professional are subject to GST under the normal forward-charge mechanism, rejecting the IBBI’s reverse-charge classification. Consequently, such professionals must issue GST-compliant invoices and remit tax themselves, affecting all lawyer-insolvency professionals and the corporate debtors they handle.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that GST best judgment assessments under Section 62(2) are deemed withdrawn the moment a taxpayer files returns with late fees and interest, even beyond the 60-day period. The judgment nullifies demand notices issued under such assessments, reinforcing taxpayer rights against procedural rigidity.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that where ineligible Input Tax Credit was availed but not utilized, the tax authorities cannot impose interest under Section 50(3) or penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act. This clarifies that mere availing of ineligible ITC, without actual benefit or misuse, does not trigger punitive liability - a critical safeguard for businesses facing retrospective tax demands.

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.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that GST assessment orders issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) are invalid, reinforcing the mandatory nature of DIN under Section 169 of the GST Act. The court remanded the case with a condition to deposit 20% of the disputed tax, underscoring the limitations of electronic service without proper procedural compliance. This judgment sets a precedent for strict adherence to DIN requirements in tax proceedings.

Uttarakhand High Court reinforces statutory limits on GST authorities, holding that filing NIL returns does not fall under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act as a valid ground for registration cancellation. The ruling quashes show-cause notices and cancellation orders, protecting businesses from arbitrary de-registration.

Bombay High Court holds that Section 74 CGST Act prohibits consolidation of show cause notices across multiple financial years, reinforcing annual tax period integrity.

Madras High Court rules affiliation fees collected by universities are taxable under GST, not exempt as educational services. Key implications for universities and tax practitioners.

Bombay High Court holds that Section 74 CGST Act prohibits consolidation of tax periods across financial years; each year must be addressed separately in show cause notices.

Madras High Court rules that GST authorities must ensure effective service of notices and provide personal hearing before passing ex parte orders, setting aside assessment for procedural violations.