CASE LAW
| Particulars | Oneliner |
|
Punjab & Haryana High Court Shaurya Alloys Private Limited |
Order challenging Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, 2017 to be listed on 06.03.2025 upon revenue submitting the reply. |
|
Gauhati High Court National Plasto Moulding |
Bonafide purchasing dealer cannot be punished in case the selling dealer had failed to deposit the tax collected by it. |
|
Kerala High Court M Trade Links |
Time limit for furnishing the return for the
month of September is to be treated as 30th November in each financial
year with effect from 01.07.2017, in respect of the assessee who had
filed their returns for the month of September on or before 30th
November, and their claim for ITC should be processed, if they are
otherwise eligible for ITC. Constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) & Section 16(4) is upheld. |
|
Uttarakhand High Court Subhash Singh |
If the suppliers have not filed their
returns, then proceedings u/s 74 GST Act, cannot be initiated against
the purchaser for availing the benefit of ITC in a fraudulent manner. |
|
2024(02)LCX0435 Orissa High Court OSL Securities Limited |
Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act is
constitutionally challenged before Orissa HC, granted interim relief to
taxpayer |
|
2023(11)LCX0324 Kerala High Court NAHASSHUKOOR |
Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act and Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules are constitutionally valid as they fail to satisfy the test to determine manifest arbitrariness whether the enactment is drastically unreasonable, capricious, irrational, or without adequate determining principle. |