The Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled merely for non-filing of returns if the taxpayer has fully paid the tax, interest, and late fees. Authorities must permit return filing and revoke cancellation upon compliance.
The Court held that authorities cannot take coercive steps against taxpayers in a fake ITC investigation if they participate fully in the inquiry. Cooperation ensures protection from arrest or similar actions.
Explains key deductions under Chapter VI-A and highlights frequent taxpayer errors, including documentation lapses and section-wise misclaims.
The judgment confirms that assets generated from betting supported by forgery, cheating or conspiracy qualify as proceeds of crime under PMLA. It upholds ED’s attachment orders in a major betting and hawala case.
Tribunal held that AO did not establish any defect in identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness of share subscribers. Addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Court addressed whether a second CGST demand could stand when the DGST had already raised a similar demand for the same period. It held that the petitioner may appeal the CGST order without additional pre-deposit because the earlier deposit covered the same amount.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority failed to examine inventory-related documents before sustaining disallowance under section 37(1). The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with directions to consider all evidence.
The Court held that the show cause notice provided less than seven days to respond, contrary to the prescribed procedure. The assessment and related notices were set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.
The Kerala High Court ordered abeyance of recovery proceedings under a penalty order while the stay petition is considered, ensuring no enforcement until a decision is made.
The High Court refused to entertain the challenge to a sale notice, holding that the petitioner must pursue the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The ruling reiterates that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists.
