The Court held that issuing a single assessment order covering several financial years is without jurisdiction. Separate proceedings must be initiated for each financial year under GST law.
The judgment clarified that information under Section 148A means a concise narration of alleged escapement, not complete material. The reassessment proceedings were allowed to continue as no jurisdictional defect was found.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the issue of pre-deposit required examination by the DRT. The appeal was remanded with directions to consider statutory compliance.
The issue concerned taxation of alleged on-money from sale of land. The Tribunal held that once the land was agricultural and outside section 2(14), capital gains and on-money additions could not survive.
The High Court examined whether delay beyond the limit prescribed under GST law could be condoned. It held that appeals filed after the maximum period under Section 107 are not maintainable.
Reiterating limits under Sections 73 and 74, the court ruled that combining several tax years into one GST notice is legally impermissible, though fresh notices may be issued lawfully.
The issue was whether accused persons in alleged GST evasion were entitled to bail. The Court held that the seriousness of the offence and electronic evidence justified rejection of bail.
The issue before the SC was whether continued custody was justified after filing of the charge sheet. The Court held that documentary evidence, official witnesses, and prolonged custody warranted grant of bail.
The AAR held that royalty paid for mining leases is consideration for licensing services to use minerals. Such services fall under SAC 997337 and attract 18% GST under reverse charge.
The Authority held that diagnostic tests, medicines, bed charges, and consumables provided to in-patients are naturally bundled with treatment, forming a composite supply with healthcare as the principal service, eligible for exemption.
