The High Court ruled that rejecting condonation requests through mere communication without a speaking order is invalid. Authorities must pass reasoned decisions after proper consideration.
The court examined whether an advocate involved in filing GST returns for fake entities should remain in custody. It granted bail, holding that limited compliance involvement and completed investigation justified release.
The Court examined whether show-cause notices covering multiple financial years are valid and noted divergent High Court rulings. It referred key legal questions to a Larger Bench for final determination.
Limitation start from date when Impugned Order in Form DRC 07 uploaded on portal and not from date of detailed order: Allahabad High Court
The court examined whether tax paid during investigation can be treated as voluntary. It ruled that authorities must investigate coercion claims before treating such payments as voluntary.
The issue was denial of ITC transfer due to different State registrations of entities. The Court ruled that no such restriction exists under Section 18(3) and Rule 41, making the portal condition invalid. The key takeaway is that statutory provisions override administrative limitations.
The Court ruled that interest cannot be imposed in adjudication if it was not specified in the show cause notice. The decision reinforces that authorities cannot exceed the scope of the original notice under GST law.
The issue involved taxation of intermediary services based on supplier location. The amendment shifts place of supply to recipient location, enabling export benefits and zero-rating.
Failure to serve notices at the updated registered address invalidates GST proceedings. The Court emphasized strict adherence to proper service requirements and natural justice.
The Court clarified that uploading orders under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab does not amount to proper service, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory communication requirements.
