Case Law
The Supreme Court has refused to revive a ₹363 crore GST demand issued to Vodafone Mobile Services Limited after its 2018 merger into Idea Cellular, holding that Section 87 of the CGST Act cannot authorise a notice to a company that had already ceased to exist.
Read the briefingGST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that GST authorities cannot use Section 74 of the CGST Act to reopen the admissibility of CENVAT credit originally availed under the pre-GST regime, following the Jharkhand High Court's Usha Martin ruling.
Read: Punjab & Haryana HC: Section 74 CGST Act Cannot Question Pre-GST CENVAT CreditCase Law Watch
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held a CBIC circular dated 10 November 2022 cannot restrict a taxpayer's Section 54(3) refund entitlement for inverted-duty-structure ITC — the third High Court (after Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh) to reject the department's reliance on this circular. Full case citation not yet available (paywalled source).
Read: Punjab & Haryana HC: A Circular Can't Override Your Section 54(3) Refund RightDid You Know
Section 61 of the CGST Act (return scrutiny) is only a mandatory precondition where a demand is founded on a discrepancy detected through that scrutiny. Where a demand instead rests on search evidence under Section 67, the department can proceed straight to a Section 74/74A demand without first issuing a Form GST ASMT-10.
Read: A GST Scrutiny Notice Isn't Always Required FirstWhat's the Penalty?
Your client's business is searched under Section 67. The resulting notice covers four years, has no DIN on the search authorisation, and proposes penalties under two provisions. Do any of these three objections get the notice quashed outright?