The High Court set aside the rejection of a GST rectification application, noting potential duplication of ITC demand. The matter is remitted to the tax authority for fresh consideration.
The Court held that proceedings under Section 201 were invalid because a binding interim order barred TDS on LTC payments. The ruling confirms that no default arises when deduction is judicially prohibited.
The court held that the extended 30 November deadline for September GST returns applies retrospectively from 01.07.2017, requiring authorities to process ITC claims filed within this period.
Court held that GST proceedings must be treated as closed when tax is paid before SCN and 15% penalty is deposited, leading to quashing of order against petitioner.
Court found it unjustified that the Council demanded compliance and personal appearance without supplying relied-upon material. It directed that proceedings be deferred until documents are furnished, reinforcing the right to a fair preliminary inquiry.
The Court held that a State Tax Officer’s suspension for delayed reporting was unjustified when an adverse report had already been submitted before the fraudulent ITC claim. The ruling clarifies that authorities must act on such reports and cannot shift responsibility to subordinate officers.
The Court held that cancellation of GST registration could not stand when the amended place of business was not considered. It directed re-inspection of the updated address and fresh adjudication of the show cause notice.
The Court held that amounts deposited under protest and retained during investigation must be considered for statutory pre-deposit. It set aside the dismissal of appeals and directed CESTAT to hear them on merits.
The Court held that the assessee could not join the scheduled virtual hearing because the link was not functional and the corrected link arrived too late. It set aside the order and directed fresh adjudication after proper hearing.
The Court held that a penalty under Section 129 was unsustainable where the e-way bill had been generated before the goods were detained. It ruled that no intention to evade tax could be inferred when the required document existed prior to interception.
