The Court quashed a confirmed GST demand after noting that the taxpayer had not replied on merits to the show cause notice. The case was remanded with directions to deposit 10% of the disputed tax and file a detailed reply.
The Court quashed reversal of input tax credit where claims fell within the extended period under amended Section 16, holding that limitation under the earlier provision could no longer be enforced.
The Tribunal upheld rejection of appeals as time-barred, holding that time spent on an unrelated refund application could not be excluded. The ruling clarifies that section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only when the same matter is pursued with due diligence.
The Court granted interim relief against a large GST demand on minimum balance non-maintenance charges. While adjudication may proceed, enforcement of any final order has been stayed.
The tribunal held that an ex parte assessment involving large unexplained bank credits required fresh adjudication. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer with one final opportunity to the assessee.
The High Court set aside a GST assessment issued after the taxpayer’s death, holding that proceedings cannot be validly conducted against a deceased person. It ruled that fresh assessment must involve the legal representative, with recovery limited to the estate.
The Court examined a GST demand raised after the death of a proprietor and held that proceedings against a dead person are invalid. The ruling clarifies that authorities must issue notice to legal heirs before any tax determination.
The High Court held that a service provider engaged in export of services was not an intermediary and quashed rejection of accumulated ITC refund, directing refund with interest.
While recognising that earlier judgments had invalidated JAO-issued notices, the Court avoided passing orders that would make the pending appeal redundant. Instead, it directed the appellate authority to decide the matter expeditiously.
The case examined whether an appellate authority could set aside an ex-parte reassessment. The tribunal held that the amended proviso to section 251(1)(a) expressly allows such remand to ensure assessment on merits.
