Court held that reopening was invalid because officer ignored that depreciation on goodwill had already been accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments. It ruled that reassessment cannot be based solely on audit objections without independent evaluation.
The High Court declined to interfere with a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) after the Department failed to produce a 2008 notice. The Court directed the assessee’s legal heirs to pursue the statutory appeal, noting the factual dispute requires appellate examination.
Court held that Customs cannot rely on oral waivers of show cause notices. Detained goods must be released if statutory requirements under Customs Act are not followed.
Court held that authorities failed to consider petitioner’s earlier deposit of over ₹2.01 crore before imposing penalties. Matter was directed to GST Appellate Tribunal for fresh evaluation, with permission to appeal without further pre-deposit.
The High Court held that the petitioner must pursue the appellate remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, declining to interfere with the ₹3.38 crore GST demand. The ruling emphasizes that writ jurisdiction cannot substitute statutory appeal mechanisms.
The Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without specifying a date and time for a personal hearing. The cancellation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
The Allahabad High Court held that Section 29 reassessment applies only where turnover has escaped assessment. ITC claims already accepted in original assessments cannot trigger reassessment. Orders attempting to reverse ITC alone were declared without jurisdiction and invalid.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging a GST demand linked to suspected fraudulent ITC transactions. It held that factual disputes must be resolved through the appellate remedy under Section 107. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal with the required pre-deposit.
The Court held that a pre-deposit made under the excise category due to a non-functional service tax portal must be treated as valid. The Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal on merits.
The Court held that with investigation complete and evidence being documentary, continued custody was unnecessary. Bail was granted as the offences were triable by a Magistrate and carried a maximum sentence of five years.
