N.M. Desai v. The Testeels Ltd. & Another
Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION The case of N.M. Desai v. The Testeels Ltd. & Another is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court emphasizing the necessity of speaking orders in quasi-judicial proceedings. The dispute arose under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the pendency of conciliation proceedings, the respondent-management sought approval from the Conciliation […]
M/s. D.Y. Beathel Enterprises v. State Tax Officer (Data Cell) & Another
Madras High Court INTRODUCTION M/s. D.Y. Beathel Enterprises, a registered dealer engaged in the business of raw rubber sheets, purchased goods from registered suppliers, namely Mr. Charles and Mrs. Shanthi. The petitioner paid the entire sale consideration, including GST, mainly through banking channels and availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on valid tax invoices issued […]
Bharat Aluminium Company Limited v. Union of India
High Court of Chhattisgarh INTRODUCTION Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging various actions initiated by the GST authorities. The petitioner primarily questioned: the legality of the assessment order dated 30.04.2024; the scrutiny notices (ASMT-10) dated 26.12.2023 and 29.12.2023; the initiation of a second scrutiny proceeding […]
Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION Kesoram Industries obtained a licence for establishing a Rayon manufacturing plant. The machinery required for the plant was imported from different countries. The Rayon Spinning Frames were imported from Japan. The pot motors, which formed part of the spinning machinery, were imported separately from Germany by Siemens Engineering under the […]
Henna Medicals v. State Tax Officer
Kerala High Court INTRODUCTION The petitioner, Henna Medicals, challenged: Assessment Order dated 28.12.2021, and Recovery Notice dated 02.09.2023. The assessment denied Input Tax Credit of ₹2,58,116, along with interest and penalty, resulting in a total demand of approximately ₹4,58,156. The High Court noted from the assessment order that the sole ground for denying ITC was […]
Henna Medicals v. State Tax Officer
Kerala High Court INTRODUCTION The petitioner, Henna Medicals, challenged: Assessment Order dated 28.12.2021, and Recovery Notice dated 02.09.2023. The Department denied ITC amounting to ₹2,58,116, along with interest and penalty, aggregating to approximately ₹4,58,156. From the assessment order, the High Court found that the only basis for denial of ITC was the difference between GSTR-2A […]
State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited
Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION The dispute arose under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The purchasing dealer claimed Input Tax Credit on purchases allegedly made from registered dealers. The tax authorities questioned the genuineness of those purchases and denied ITC. The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court. Legal Issues The Supreme Court considered: […]
Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Calcutta High Court INTRODUCTION Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. claimed Input Tax Credit in its GSTR-3B return for the financial year 2017-18. The Assistant Commissioner noticed that certain invoices claimed in GSTR-3B were not reflected in GSTR-2A. Based on this mismatch: notices were issued; ITC was reversed; and recovery proceedings were initiated. The assessee challenged the […]
Diya Agencies v. State Tax Officer
Kerala High Court INTRODUCTION The petitioner, Diya Agencies, claimed Input Tax Credit under Section 16 of the CGST Act. The tax authorities denied the ITC primarily because the corresponding invoices were not reflected in GSTR-2A. The petitioner challenged the denial before the Kerala High Court, contending that non-reflection in GSTR-2A alone cannot deprive a genuine […]
Sarabhai M. Chemicals v. Commissioner of Central Excise
CEGAT INTRODUCTION The appellant manufactured Chlormequat Chloride (Cycocel). Before 1 March 1986: the product was classified under Tariff Item 68; exemption was claimed under Notification No. 234/82. After introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: the appellant classified the product under Heading 3808.10 as a pesticide. The Department later alleged that: Cycocel was actually […]