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.
The High Court held that consolidating several tax periods into one composite show cause notice is impermissible under GST law. Proceedings based on such notices were quashed, with liberty granted to initiate fresh action lawfully.
The Court held that GST paid on assignment of leasehold rights, treated as sale of land, is refundable as such transactions are not taxable supplies.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence where TDS credit was denied because it appeared in a different assessment year’s Form 26AS. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify documents and allow credit as per law.
The Court set aside retrospective GST cancellation as neither the SCN nor the order recorded reasons, reaffirming that authorities must justify retrospective action.
