The Madras High Court quashed a GST assessment on seigniorage fees after finding that the taxpayer’s reply was ignored. It remanded the matter and stayed enforcement until the Supreme Court decides the tax issue.
The Bombay High Court ruled that exports classified as “restricted” remain eligible for RoDTEP benefits when carried out with specific government authorization. The Court held that regulatory restrictions do not amount to a prohibition and directed grant of benefits with 6% interest.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a GST order passed without considering the taxpayer’s reply or assigning reasons is a non-speaking order violating natural justice. The Court quashed the order and directed fresh adjudication after a proper hearing.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the time limit for filing a waiver application under Section 128A is directory, not mandatory. It held that delay alone cannot justify rejection of an application seeking waiver of GST interest and penalty.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a GST order passed without considering the assessee’s reply and without recording reasons violates the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting a proper hearing.
The Delhi High Court held that the amended limitation provision under Section 54 cannot be applied retrospectively to deny refund claims relating to earlier periods. It ruled that vested rights under the unamended law must be preserved.
The Bombay High Court held that recovery proceedings cannot continue while the statutory period to file an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act remains available. It ruled that premature recovery would render the statutory appellate remedy ineffective.
The High Court held that a GST penalty order passed without issuing a prior show cause notice violates Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and principles of natural justice. The penalty was quashed with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
The Delhi High Court held that uploading an SCN only under the ‘Additional Notices’ tab without effective communication does not amount to valid service. The GST demand was quashed as the taxpayer was denied a fair opportunity to respond.
Delhi HC held that directing GST Department to give seven days’ prior notice before coercive action is not equivalent to blanket anticipatory bail. Ruling preserves investigative powers while ensuring taxpayers receive an opportunity to pursue legal remedies.
