The Court held that tax authorities cannot coerce payment when no demand has been raised. It directed cooperation in investigation while protecting the taxpayer from undue pressure.
GST Registration Cancellation Set Aside for Lack of Proper Reasons, Bank Account Attachment Lapses Automatically Under GST Law after one year: Bombay HC
Sections 74 and 74A operate on fundamentally different legal principles. The Court noted that their combined invocation raises serious legal concerns. Key takeaway: contradictory provisions cannot be applied together.
The issue was whether a show cause notice could be issued under a rule already omitted. The court stayed the notice, holding that the jurisdictional challenge requires further examination.
The issue involved taxability of management and incentive fees earned by an asset reconstruction company. The tribunal set aside the demand due to incorrect classification and invalid invocation of extended limitation.
The SC reinstated the original stay on CERA audit, holding that the High Court had no sufficient reason to alter long-standing interim relief. It directed expeditious disposal of the writ petitions while continuing protection.
The court held that issuing a single show cause notice for multiple financial years violates GST law. It ruled such “bunching” is impermissible and directed fresh year-wise notices.
The court held that the rectification order failed to satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 161 of the CGST Act. The impugned order was quashed, directing issuance of a fresh speaking order after considering the taxpayer’s reply.
The tribunal held that proportionate reversal of credit for trading is sufficient compliance. It ruled that full reversal under Rule 6(3A) is not mandatory.
The court set aside denial of ITC refund based on intermediary classification without proper examination. It remanded the matter for fresh adjudication considering agreements and legal precedents.
