The Rajasthan High Court held that refusal to hear the appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice where cancellation of GST registration impacted business continuity and livelihood. The Court exercised writ jurisdiction to condone the delay.
The Gauhati High Court held that a Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the mandatory notice under Section 73(1) of the AGST Act. The GST demand order was quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
The Kerala High Court held that although the earlier communication was not a Section 74 notice, the subsequent GST DRC-01 notice prima facie met statutory requirements. The Court directed the taxpayer to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that retrospective GST cancellation is invalid where the show cause notice does not specifically propose such action or disclose its basis.
The Madras High Court held that Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel GST proceedings on the same subject matter already examined by Central authorities and remanded the matter for overlap verification.
The High Court ruled that absence of the assessing officer’s signature renders GST assessment orders legally defective. It held that such defects cannot be cured under Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that absence of a DIN number rendered the GST assessment order invalid. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax.
The Court dismissed a plea seeking refund of GST penalty paid during detention of goods, observing that the taxpayer had made payment without protest and had not pursued the statutory appellate remedy.
Court ruled that reassessment notices under Section 148 must be issued through the faceless mechanism under Section 151A and the 2022 Scheme. Notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was held invalid and quashed.
The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Court followed the Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies.
