The issue was whether relief could be granted against a GST assessment order through writ. The Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal with delay condonation, leaving merits open.
Recovery action was initiated even after partial tax payment. The Court held that instalment relief must be sought through Form DRC-20. Key takeaway: procedural compliance is essential to obtain payment relief.
The case involved a penalty imposed despite the main tax demand being set aside in appeal. The Court held that the petitioner should seek rectification before the proper officer.
The Court addressed the issue where the GST portal prevented filing of a revocation application due to time limits. It allowed manual submission and directed authorities to consider it.
The Court refused to entertain the writ as a statutory appeal remedy existed under the Finance Act. It allowed the petitioner to approach CESTAT with delay condonation.
The Court held that GST authorities cannot rely on seized documents that are missing or untraceable during adjudication. It ruled that proceedings must be based only on available records with fair hearing.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to file a fresh application for revocation of GST registration after failing to reply to the show cause notice. It held that the authority must consider the new application independently.
The Court directed the petitioner to first seek rectification of the order before challenging recovery proceedings under GST law. It held that the proper officer must consider such application, even manually if required.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition as no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. It allowed withdrawal with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
The issue was whether delayed appeal against GST demand could still be filed. The court allowed the assessee to file appeal with delay condonation and directed consideration as per law.
