The issue was whether expiry of the revocation timeline bars restoration of GST registration. The Court ruled that authorities can restore registration when pending returns and full tax liabilities are cleared as per Rule 22.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalties cannot be imposed when there is no evidence that the CHA manager knowingly aided mis-declaration or ineligible drawback claims.
The Tribunal held that seizure based only on presumption and driver statements was invalid. Authorities failed to prove attempted export through non-specified routes.
The High Court found prima facie merit in the challenge to a state reimbursement clause restricting ITC. Show cause notices seeking reversal of ITC were stayed pending further hearing.
The issue was whether higher remittances made later could alter the transaction value declared at import. The Tribunal held that customs duty must be determined at the time of import, rendering the differential demand unsustainable.
The court clarified that exemption notifications must be applied as issued and cannot be altered by importing supposed intent. Any attempt to add or curtail benefits retrospectively was held to be beyond legislative delegation.
The Tribunal held that when closing stock is revalued under Section 145A to include tax components, opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis. The case was remanded to ensure consistent valuation and accurate profit computation.
The High Court held that a show cause notice lacking factual details cannot sustain cancellation of GST registration. The cancellation order was set aside and fresh opportunity was granted to the taxpayer.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued after three years was time-barred under section 149. Since the ₹50 lakh exception did not apply, the reassessment was invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment on a recurring issue already decided in favour of the taxpayer by the High Court is invalid. Pending appeal before the Supreme Court cannot justify reassessment.
