The High Court held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-argue issues already decided. In the absence of an error apparent on record, the review petition was dismissed.
The court examined whether a GST demand could exceed the amount proposed in a show-cause notice. It held that enhancement of demand violates Section 75(7) and set aside the assessment and appellate orders.
The Tribunal held that purchases supported by invoices, e-way bills, banking payments, and valid GST registration at the time of supply cannot be treated as bogus. Subsequent GST cancellation and non-response by suppliers were held insufficient to justify disallowance.
The High Court declined to adjudicate a GST demand challenge as a statutory appeal remedy was available. The petitioner was directed to approach the Appellate Authority within a fixed time.
The court examined whether reassessment for one year could be based on information from another year. It held that absence of foundational facts for the relevant year invalidates the notice.
Court held that a cheque initially issued as security can mature into an enforceable liability once loan recall conditions are triggered. Disputed facts on repayment and breach must be examined at trial, not at quashing stage.
The High Court declined to retain the writ once the GST Appellate Tribunal became operational. The dispute was directed to be resolved through the statutory appellate mechanism.
Tribunal held that amounts deposited during investigation are revenue deposits, not duty, and directed payment of 12% interest as compensation from date of deposit till refund.
The Court found that confiscation based solely on surplus stock found during survey lacks legal basis. The tax authority was directed to decide the matter afresh after hearing the taxpayer.
The High Court held that company land cannot be attached under PMLA merely because accused persons are shareholders. Shareholding does not confer ownership over corporate assets.
