The Tribunal ruled that forfeiture of a customs broker’s security deposit could not stand as the show cause notice was not proven to be issued within the mandatory limitation period. Failure to disclose the offence report date vitiated the proceedings.
The issue before the Court was whether a bare approval lacking application of mind could sustain proceedings under Section 153C. The Court held that mechanical approval vitiates the proceedings, reaffirming that valid approval is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
The issue was whether a taxpayer could be denied appellate remedy due to non-appointment of GSTAT members. The Court held that limitation would start only after the Tribunal becomes functional and granted liberty to file appeal with statutory stay.
The Supreme Court granted interim bail while directing day-to-day trial, balancing liberty with strict conditions despite the High Court’s refusal of regular bail.
The High Court held that dismissal of a GST appeal on delay was improper where illness was supported by records. The key takeaway is that marginal delay with valid reasons must be condoned.
The High Court held that inter-State supplies remain taxable under IGST where goods are delivered outside the State. Contractual clauses on transfer of title cannot override Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act.
The High Court held that further recovery should be halted where a rectification application against a GST order is pending and substantial tax has already been recovered. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide rectification within a fixed timeframe.
The High Court held that the appellate authority failed to consider material documents placed on record while rejecting a GST appeal. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after proper evaluation of evidence.
The High Court held that delay caused by illness of a partner should have been condoned where the fact was not disputed. The appellate authority’s dismissal of the GST appeal on limitation alone was set aside.
The High Court held that the Tribunal misapplied the law on presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C by wrongly shifting the burden to the Revenue. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
