Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST order and remitted the matter to the revenue for reconsideration. The period until the Supreme Court’s decision is excluded for limitation purposes. The ruling underscores adherence to due process in tax adjudication.
The High Court noted that the inquiry was conducted hastily with limited time for reply and directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider all issues lawfully. The key takeaway is that disciplinary action must follow fair procedure.
Because the approval was issued collectively for several years, the Tribunal found it invalid and allowed the appeal. The key takeaway is the necessity of separate approval for each year.
The High Court held that a confiscation notice issued under Section 130 could not be based solely on record-keeping violations under Section 35. The ruling confirms that tax liability must be determined first under Sections 73 or 74.
The Court ruled that tyres and tubes were part of the registered spare-parts list, validating the Tribunal’s decision to cancel the CST penalty. The judgment reinforces strict scrutiny before sustaining misrepresentation penalties.
The tribunal dismissed the Section 9 application because the applicant failed to establish valid service of the Section 8 notice. The ruling stresses that insolvency proceedings cannot commence without strict compliance with notice requirements.
The Tribunal confirmed the dismissal of an SA challenging symbolic possession under SARFAESI. Notices were sent to the guarantor, borrower, and spouse, with proper affixture and newspaper publication. The case emphasizes the importance of timely communication and procedural compliance in recovery proceedings.
The Court directed the Pollution Control Board to decide the petitioner’s application within six weeks after noting the pending recommendation. The ruling ensures timely action without addressing merits.
Court held that appeal against a confiscation order was time-barred and refused to condone delay. It ruled that lack of diligence after receiving demand notice barred intervention under Article 226.
The court quashed a GST assessment order after the authority failed to provide a personal hearing, directing a reasoned order in line with natural justice principles.
