The Tribunal held that failure to conduct the mandatory admission and denial of documents required rectification before issuing the final order. The ruling allows only the procedural step to be completed while rejecting all other requests.
The Court held that refund appeals pending for years must be decided within the statutory one-year period under the CGST Act. It directed the Appellate Authority to issue orders by January 2026.
The Court held that the penalty could not stand because the goods were accompanied by genuine documents and the e-way bill failure was due to a technical glitch. It ruled that no intention to evade tax existed and quashed the proceedings.
The case concerns a tender for sand quarries stalled despite receiving required clarifications on ITR and VAT issues. The Court held that authorities must act promptly once clarifications are issued and directed transmission of records for immediate decision-making.
Court held that barter transactions between Jammu & Kashmir and PoK qualify as intra-state supplies, making GST applicable. The ruling upholds Section 74 notices as valid and directs traders to pursue statutory remedies.
Court held that reopening was invalid because officer ignored that depreciation on goodwill had already been accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments. It ruled that reassessment cannot be based solely on audit objections without independent evaluation.
The High Court declined to interfere with a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) after the Department failed to produce a 2008 notice. The Court directed the assessee’s legal heirs to pursue the statutory appeal, noting the factual dispute requires appellate examination.
Court held that Customs cannot rely on oral waivers of show cause notices. Detained goods must be released if statutory requirements under Customs Act are not followed.
Court held that authorities failed to consider petitioner’s earlier deposit of over ₹2.01 crore before imposing penalties. Matter was directed to GST Appellate Tribunal for fresh evaluation, with permission to appeal without further pre-deposit.
The High Court held that the petitioner must pursue the appellate remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, declining to interfere with the ₹3.38 crore GST demand. The ruling emphasizes that writ jurisdiction cannot substitute statutory appeal mechanisms.
