The Court examined whether repeated summons to a director amounted to misuse of power. It held that while authorities can summon individuals, such power must not be exercised arbitrarily or for harassment.
The court ruled that Section 67 allows seizure only of goods, documents, and related items, not cash. It held that treating currency as “things” is legally incorrect. The decision reinforces strict interpretation of GST provisions and limits enforcement powers.
The court ruled that GST law does not prohibit inter-state transfer of ITC in amalgamation cases, especially for CGST and IGST components. It held that denial based on portal restrictions without legal backing is invalid. The decision reinforces that statutory provisions prevail over administrative practices.
Gauhati High Court rules GSTR-1 vs GSTR-3B mismatch from clerical errors cannot trigger automatic tax recovery without Rule 88C process; ITC denial for FY 2018-19 invalid due to Section 16(5).
India cuts excise duty on petrol and diesel to offset global oil price surge amid war. Move aims to reduce fuel costs, curb inflation, and protect consumers and businesses.
The issue involved inability to access documents leading to ex parte assessment. The Court granted interim relief by reducing the pre-deposit amount. The takeaway is that procedural fairness can influence deposit requirements.
The issue was whether non-response caused by a Chartered Accountant justifies setting aside ex-parte orders. The Court held that taxpayer responsibility cannot be shifted, and statutory orders remain valid.
The issue was whether bail can be granted despite serious fake ITC allegations. The Court ruled that prolonged custody and delayed trial justify bail, prioritizing personal liberty.
The Court examined whether GST registration can remain cancelled despite full payment of dues. It held that authorities must revoke cancellation once statutory conditions are satisfied, ensuring fairness and continuity of business.
The Court ruled that recovery under Section 75(12) cannot be used where wrongful ITC utilisation is alleged. It held that such cases require adjudication under Sections 73 or 74 before recovery action.
