The P&H High Court in the Arvind Fashion Ltd case ruled that the time spent on a bona fide GST rectification application (Sec 161) must be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal (Sec 107). This decision provides clarity on procedural timelines.
The MP High Court set aside an appeal dismissal, clarifying that GST appeal limitation (Sec 107) must exclude the first day and be calculated by months, not days. Costs recoverable from official.
The Bombay High Court’s views on single GST Show Cause Notices (SCN) for multiple years are clarified. Initial prima facie views in RioCare were not a final ruling.
Court holds that a single SCN covering several years is valid under Section 74 of the CGST Act, as fraudulent ITC claims often span multiple periods.
Allahabad HC rules that Section 74 cannot be invoked for mere procedural errors. Penalties require fraud, willful misstatement, or deliberate suppression of facts.
IBBI Regulations 32 & 32A for liquidation: defines asset sale modes and prioritizes selling the business as a going concern to maximize value and preserve operations.
Supreme Court rules that GST proceedings start with a Show Cause Notice, not a summons. Clarifies guidelines for Central and State GST authorities to avoid parallel investigations.
The GST Act mandates strict timelines for issuing show cause notices and assessment orders. SCN under Section 73 or 74 must follow prescribed periods to be valid.
Summarizing IBC Sections 21(6), 21(6A), and 24(5) on financial creditor representation. Covers flexible voting in consortiums, mandatory ARs, and individual professional appointment.
The Gujarat High Court ruled in MC Bauchemie that a discrepancy between E-way bill turnover and GSTR-9 turnover is insufficient alone to invoke GST demand proceedings under Section 73. Authorities must establish fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression to assume jurisdiction.
