The Court held that confiscation orders passed under GST laws are appealable under Section 107 and should not be challenged directly in writ jurisdiction. As an effective appellate remedy existed, the petition was not maintainable. The ruling reinforces the primacy of statutory remedies in GST disputes.
The ITAT ruled that section 269SS targets cash advances in property deals, not final sale consideration paid at registration. Penalty under section 271D was therefore not leviable.
The Tribunal held that section 269SS targets cash advances in property transactions. Cash received at the time of registration was found to be outside its scope.
The judgment clarified that delayed installment interest arises from a debtor–creditor relationship, not a service supply, and therefore cannot be subjected to GST.
The High Court quashed reassessment notices holding that mere receipt of dividends and capital loss does not establish sham transactions. Allegations against fund managers cannot automatically implicate investors.
The issue was whether recovery could continue after filing GST appeals with pre-deposit. The High Court held that the recovery notice lost its force and ordered de-freezing of the bank account.
The Madras High Court remitted a GST order for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the petitioner must submit a reply with supporting documents before finalizing the tax demand.
The issue was whether GST show cause notices could be quashed at the threshold. The High Court held that alleged procedural lapses can be raised before the adjudicating authority, not in writ proceedings.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after the High Court upheld that revision under Section 263 was unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry.
The Court refused to quash GST recovery notices after noting that the adjudication order had been upheld in appeal and never challenged further. The ruling confirms that recovery can proceed once appellate remedies are exhausted.
