The Appellate Authority held that it cannot condone delay beyond the 30-day extended period prescribed under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act. As the appeal was filed 250 days after communication of the AAR order, it was dismissed without examining merits.
The Tribunal held that once depreciation on goodwill is allowed in the first year, it cannot be questioned in subsequent years. Revisional powers under Section 263 were found to be wrongly invoked.
The ITAT held that an assessment and appellate order passed without effective participation, allegedly due to notices sent to a wrong email address, must be set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
Holding that responsibility for delay required factual adjudication, the High Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the parties to civil or arbitral remedies.
The Court ruled that GST proceedings initiated under Section 74 for FY 2024–25 were without jurisdiction and directed treatment of the order as a Section 74A notice.
The Court held that reimbursement claims cannot be processed without required documents and ordered verification before releasing incentives. Authorities were directed to act within a fixed timeframe if documents are on record.
The High Court held that a reassessment notice issued after expiry of the six-year period under the old regime is barred by limitation. The ruling reiterates that extended timelines under the new law cannot revive time-barred cases.
The Court found no merit in interfering with the High Court’s order setting aside a belated reassessment notice. It confirmed that notices issued after the statutory limitation period are invalid.
The High Court ruled that Rule 86A allows restriction only of existing ITC in the electronic credit ledger. Creating a negative balance was held to be without jurisdiction.
The High Court held that denial of waiver under Section 234C must be supported by reasons. A cryptic order ignoring CBDT guidelines was remanded for fresh consideration.
