The Court set aside an appeal dismissal due to one-day notice for personal hearing. The petitioner will now have a proper hearing with at least a week’s notice.
Court upheld Tribunal’s finding that Assessing Officer examined cash deposits and adopted a permissible view by treating them as sales. Since the issue had been enquired into and two views were possible, revision under Section 263 could not be justified.
The ruling clarifies that the appellant’s remaining limitation period revived in full once the COVID-related exclusion ended. The tribunal found that the petitions filed in August 2022 fell within the recomputed timeline. The decision underscores that the 90-day rule applies only where the remaining limitation is shorter.
The Court held that proceedings under Section 74 cannot be sustained without findings of fraud, misstatement, or suppression. The appellate order was modified and refund with interest was directed.
The Court permitted the petitioner to file a belated appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, subject to Rs. 15,000 payment, directing the appellate authority to hear it on merits.
The Tribunal held that reassessing value a second time without fresh evidence was unsustainable and set aside the duty, interest, and penalty demand.
The Tribunal held that the right to apply accrued in 2016 based on the last Operational Creditor invoice, making the Section 9 application time-barred. It found the lower authority erred in treating a later invoice as extending limitation.
The Court held that once the assessee files a valid return, the assessment under Section 62 is automatically withdrawn. Even if the return is submitted late, the statutory consequence under Section 62(2) applies. The ruling confirms that the department may still verify liability and issue a fresh notice if short-payment exists.
The Court held that prolonged custody and the documentary nature of the evidence justified bail. The decision highlights that delayed trials in CGST matters should not lead to continued detention.
The High Court held that goods accompanied by a valid e-way bill cannot be seized for non-declaration of destination as an additional place of business. The orders under Section 129 were quashed.
