Description: A clerical mistake in the allotment date led to a violation of section 62(1)(a), attracting penalty under section 450 despite subsequent rectification.
The issue was whether recovery could continue after filing GST appeals with pre-deposit. The High Court held that the recovery notice lost its force and ordered de-freezing of the bank account.
The Madras High Court remitted a GST order for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the petitioner must submit a reply with supporting documents before finalizing the tax demand.
The issue was whether GST show cause notices could be quashed at the threshold. The High Court held that alleged procedural lapses can be raised before the adjudicating authority, not in writ proceedings.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after the High Court upheld that revision under Section 263 was unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry.
The Court refused to quash GST recovery notices after noting that the adjudication order had been upheld in appeal and never challenged further. The ruling confirms that recovery can proceed once appellate remedies are exhausted.
Tribunal held that loss arising from compulsory conversion of stressed loans into equity under a restructuring scheme is a deductible business loss or bad debt for a bank.
The tribunal held that milk procurement and sale by a charitable society were incidental to its primary object of helping small and marginal farmers, and exemption under Section 11 could not be denied.
The High Court granted regular bail noting completion of investigation, seizure of documents, and the documentary nature of allegations, holding that continued custody was unwarranted with conditions to secure presence.
The Court held that rejection of a GST appeal was invalid where prior payments under protest already satisfied the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement.
