The Karnataka High Court held that interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act is a statutory liability that cannot be waived or reduced without legislative authority. The Court set aside directions granting blanket waiver of interest, penalty and limitation.
The Gauhati High Court held that a GST cancellation order without recorded reasons is a non-speaking order and violates natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings.
The Madras High Court held that GST proceedings under Sections 73, 74 or 74A can be initiated against legal heirs after the proprietor’s death. Recovery, however, is restricted to the extent of the inherited estate.
The Madras High Court held that retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s GST registration alone is insufficient to deny ITC. Authorities must first verify whether the recipient has established genuine supplies through documentary evidence.
The Madras High Court quashed a GST assessment order issued nearly four years after the assessee’s death. It held that proceedings against a deceased person are legally unsustainable and fresh action must be initiated against the legal heirs.
The Madras High Court held that a Section 62 best judgment assessment cannot continue once the taxpayer subsequently files GST returns. The matter was remanded for reassessment after considering the uploaded returns.
The Madras High Court quashed a Section 74 demand after finding the taxpayer’s turnover appeared below the GST registration threshold and no personal hearing was granted. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following due process.
The Gauhati High Court held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied Input Tax Credit merely because the supplier failed to deposit GST with the Government. The ruling clarifies that recovery should be pursued against the defaulting supplier unless collusion or fraudulent transactions are established.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a GST arrest was illegal because the arrest memo lacked specific grounds, omitted the place of arrest, and the grounds of arrest did not bear a mandatory CBIC-DIN. The Court ordered immediate release while allowing fresh action in accordance with law.
The Madras High Court held that Section 74 cannot be invoked without allowing the assessee to produce evidence establishing genuine supply of goods. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after granting a reasonable opportunity.
