Courts held that GST offences covered under the CGST Act must follow the special procedure prescribed under the statute. Authorities cannot invoke IPC provisions to avoid mandatory safeguards like prior sanction for prosecution.
High Courts have ruled that temporary closure of business premises during a GST survey is not by itself a valid ground for cancellation of registration. Authorities must establish fraud or statutory violations with proper evidence and due process.
The analysis highlights how GST law forces recipients to pay suppliers within 180 days while still exposing them to ITC denial if suppliers default. It contends that the provision imposes an impossible burden on compliant taxpayers.
The Supreme Court affirmed that continuous non-filing of GSTR-3B despite issuing invoices and collecting GST amounts to wilful suppression under Section 74. The ruling rejects financial hardship as a defence against GST compliance failures.
The issue was imposition of a higher penalty than proposed in the show cause notice. The court set aside the order, holding it violates Section 75(7) and is without jurisdiction.
The Court held that absence of cogent reasoning on jurisdiction and time-bar issues invalidated the order. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The High Court quashed an adjudication order as the notice was served only electronically after GST registration cancellation. Physical service under Section 169 was held mandatory.
Allahabad High Court held that limitation cannot run from mere portal upload of an ex-parte order. The appellate authority must reconsider limitation where no proper communication was made.
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a GST order against Virendra Kumar Surendra Prakash, citing a portal error where the order was not properly displayed to the taxpayer.
The Allahabad High Court directed the tax department to refund 90% of a disputed tax amount, citing an arbitrary and premature recovery.
