The issue was whether a taxpayer could seek revocation after missing the prescribed timeline due to portal restrictions. The Court allowed manual filing and directed authorities to consider the application on merits.
The issue was mismatch between Section 74 mentioned in summary and penalty imposed under Section 73. The Court allowed rectification by approaching the proper officer without examining merits.
The issue was whether tax demand can exceed the amount and scope mentioned in the show cause notice. The Court held that such excess demand violates Section 75(7) and directed rectification through proper procedure.
The court refused to entertain a constitutional challenge raised to bypass limitation. It allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation subject to conditions.
The court declined to examine the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) in absence of clear factual basis. It held that disputed facts must be examined through statutory appellate remedies.
The court addressed denial of input tax credit due to mismatch with GSTR-2A and missing invoices. It allowed the taxpayer to seek rectification with supporting documents before the proper officer.
The Court found that tax already paid cannot be demanded again through adjudication proceedings. It allowed the taxpayer to seek rectification with proof of payment.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to seek revocation even after expiry of the statutory timeline. It directed authorities to consider delay condonation and decide the matter on merits.
The issue was whether a GST order passed without considering reply should be set aside in writ. The Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal with delay condonation, leaving merits open.
The issue was whether a delayed writ against a GST order should be entertained. The Court declined to examine merits and allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation.
