The past month has witnessed several significant judicial pronouncements shaping the contours of GST law and its interpretation. From the Madras High Court striking down the extension of limitation period as arbitrary, to the Sikkim High Court ruling that refund of unutilised ITC upon closure of business is impermissible, the judiciary continues to reaffirm the importance of procedural precision and statutory compliance.
Adding to this, the Karnataka High Court clarified the importance of “jurisdictional facts” under Section 74, underscoring that mere disagreement in classification cannot amount to suppression. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict, held that renewal of provisional attachment beyond one year is not permitted, thereby curbing administrative overreach.
Finally, the apex court also brought clarity on cross-empowerment between CGST and SGST authorities, emphasizing coordination between tax bodies and taxpayer cooperation to prevent parallel proceedings.
Together, these rulings reiterate a clear message — statutory limits and procedural mandates cannot be stretched beyond legislative intent. Taxpayers and authorities alike must tread carefully within the four corners of law.
