Telangana High Court directed that no coercive GST recovery action should be taken if the taxpayer deposits 10% of the assessed tax liability within four weeks. The taxpayer was permitted to pursue second appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.
Telangana High Court directed that no coercive recovery action should be taken against the taxpayer if 10% of the assessed GST liability is deposited within the prescribed period.
Telangana High Court held that grievances relating to multiple GST show cause notices and assessment orders for the same tax period can be rectified under Section 161 of the TGST Act.
Telangana High Court declined to examine the merits of the GST demand and appellate order because an alternative statutory remedy before GSTAT was available. The taxpayer was granted liberty to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal with statutory pre-deposit.
Telangana High Court directed GST authorities to accept a manual application for revocation of cancelled GST registration where the online portal did not permit filing due to limitation restrictions. The Court emphasized that the application should be decided according to law.
Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to file an appeal against rejection of the GST registration revocation application. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider delay condonation sympathetically before deciding the matter on merits.
Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to file a delayed appeal against the GST assessment order along with a delay condonation application. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the delay sympathetically since the taxpayer had been pursuing writ proceedings before the High Court.
Telangana High Court declined to examine the merits of the GST dispute because the taxpayer’s rectification application was still pending before the authority.
Delhi High Court ordered Xiaomi entities to secure ₹272 crore because SEP implementers cannot continue exploiting standardized patented technology without furnishing interim security during FRAND disputes, even before final determination of infringement or royalty rates.
The Delhi High Court held that one of the meetings relied upon for automatic vacation of the petitioner’s seat was convened without proper notice under Regulation 142. Consequently, the ICAI communication declaring the seat vacant was quashed.
