The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the transfer of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) upon amalgamation of companies is permissible under Section 18(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 41 of the CGST Rules, even when the transferor and transferee are registered in different states. The Court held that statutory forms cannot impose restrictions not found in the law.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that an accused is entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity when a co-accused in a similar position has already been granted bail, particularly in cases involving alleged GST fake invoice and ineligible input tax credit offences. The Court emphasized that the merits of the case are to be determined at trial.
The Madras High Court has set aside an order cancelling GST registration, holding that such cancellation may be revoked if the taxpayer files all pending returns, pays outstanding taxes, interest, and penalties within a specified period, and complies with conditions regarding input tax credit utilization, as previously established in the Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center judgment.
The Bombay High Court has held that the seizure of cash from a taxpayer’s premises under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act is unlawful where authorities fail to record ‘reason to believe’ and do not comply with statutory requirements, including timely notice. The Court quashed the seizure orders and directed the immediate release of the cash to the petitioner.
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the GST exemption of Rs. 7,500 per member for sourcing goods or services by apartment associations applies on a monthly basis, not annually. The AAR further held that contributions to sinking or corpus funds are taxable as advances at the time of receipt, and voluntary festival donations are not liable to GST.
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that semen sorting services provided for bovine artificial insemination are exempt from GST. The AAR clarified that such services fall under SAC 9986 as support services to animal husbandry, rejecting the Department’s contention that they should be classified as technical services under SAC 998399.
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling has clarified that corpus or sinking funds collected by residential apartment associations from members are treated as advances for future supply of services and are subject to GST at the time of collection. The AAR further held that such corpus funds are distinct from monthly maintenance charges for GST purposes.
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that recoveries by a Resident Welfare Association (RWA) for water and electricity, corpus fund collections, and community centre maintenance are subject to GST as part of overall maintenance services, with exemptions and timing of tax liability clarified under relevant GST notifications and provisions.
The Madras High Court has held that authorities invoking Rule 86-A of the CGST Rules to block a taxpayer’s electronic credit ledger must communicate the written reasons for such action to the taxpayer. The Court emphasized the necessity of affording an opportunity to respond and mandated a time-bound process for considering representations and objections.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that in cases of alleged GST input tax credit fraud where the investigation is primarily documentary and the accused has undergone substantial custody, further detention is unwarranted. The Court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and noted that statutory recovery proceedings under the GST Act remain available.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the assignment or transfer of leasehold rights in industrial plots, along with buildings thereon, constitutes a transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and does not amount to a supply of services under the GST Act. Consequently, such transactions are not subject to GST liability.
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the provisional attachment of a bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, finding that the petitioner failed to verify the credentials of its client involved in online gaming and betting, resulting in potential GST evasion. The Court declined to de-freeze the account, citing the ongoing investigation and the scale of dubious transactions.
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that an appellate authority is required to consider all documentary evidence submitted before the adjudicating authority, even if the appellant fails to appear for a personal hearing. The court set aside the impugned appellate order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a reasoned, speaking order.
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that Section 17(5)(d) of the GST Act, which blocks input tax credit for construction of immovable property, does not apply to transactions involving mere transfer of leasehold rights without any construction activity. The Court quashed the show cause notice and directed unblocking of the petitioner’s input tax credit.
The Madras High Court has held that the requirement under Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules for Input Service Distributors (ISD) to distribute input tax credit (ITC) in the same month applies only after all conditions under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act are fulfilled. The court harmonized the rule with the statutory scheme, rejecting a literal interpretation based solely on invoice receipt.
