The Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without specifying a date and time for a personal hearing. The cancellation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
The Allahabad High Court held that Section 29 reassessment applies only where turnover has escaped assessment. ITC claims already accepted in original assessments cannot trigger reassessment. Orders attempting to reverse ITC alone were declared without jurisdiction and invalid.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging a GST demand linked to suspected fraudulent ITC transactions. It held that factual disputes must be resolved through the appellate remedy under Section 107. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal with the required pre-deposit.
The Court held that a pre-deposit made under the excise category due to a non-functional service tax portal must be treated as valid. The Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal on merits.
The Court held that with investigation complete and evidence being documentary, continued custody was unnecessary. Bail was granted as the offences were triable by a Magistrate and carried a maximum sentence of five years.
The Court held that penalty under Section 48(5) cannot be imposed based solely on suspicion without proof that the transaction was omitted from books. The order was set aside due to lack of evidence of intent to evade tax.
The Court held that insolvency law cannot be used to sidestep a maintenance order. It ruled that the petitioner’s plea lacked legal foundation and refused to declare him insolvent.
The Court quashed the ex-parte GST order after finding that no reply or hearing was granted. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, with fresh adjudication subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling on related notifications.
The Court held that earlier orders ignored relevant High Court decisions interpreting Rule 90(3). The refund claim must now be reconsidered afresh within a fixed timeline.
The Court held that objections raised by Customs lacked merit, noting similar goods were earlier cleared without issue. The review was dismissed and costs were imposed for unjustified action.
