The High Court declined to interfere with a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) after the Department failed to produce a 2008 notice. The Court directed the assessee’s legal heirs to pursue the statutory appeal, noting the factual dispute requires appellate examination.
Court held that Customs cannot rely on oral waivers of show cause notices. Detained goods must be released if statutory requirements under Customs Act are not followed.
The ITAT ruled that failure to issue a mandatory Section 143(2) notice and disregarding an e-verified return rendered the reassessment void. The addition of ₹50.50 lakh was deleted.
Court held that authorities failed to consider petitioner’s earlier deposit of over ₹2.01 crore before imposing penalties. Matter was directed to GST Appellate Tribunal for fresh evaluation, with permission to appeal without further pre-deposit.
ITAT Delhi remanded the case to verify whether imports made using a firm’s PAN were recorded in the company’s books. CIT(A) deletion was quashed as factual examination was needed.
The High Court held that the petitioner must pursue the appellate remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, declining to interfere with the ₹3.38 crore GST demand. The ruling emphasizes that writ jurisdiction cannot substitute statutory appeal mechanisms.
The Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without specifying a date and time for a personal hearing. The cancellation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
The Allahabad High Court held that Section 29 reassessment applies only where turnover has escaped assessment. ITC claims already accepted in original assessments cannot trigger reassessment. Orders attempting to reverse ITC alone were declared without jurisdiction and invalid.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging a GST demand linked to suspected fraudulent ITC transactions. It held that factual disputes must be resolved through the appellate remedy under Section 107. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal with the required pre-deposit.
The Tribunal held that reopening cannot stand when the show-cause notice cites one allegation (bogus ITC) but the final order relies on another (bogus purchases). The jurisdictional inconsistency invalidated the entire reassessment.
