The Court directed refund of recovered GST demand, holding that recovery should not continue once appeal intention was intimated under Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST, subject to retention of statutory pre-deposit.
The Court quashed assessment and appellate orders for denying exemption on technical grounds. It emphasised that appellate proceedings are a continuation of assessment and must rectify errors.
The Court refused pre-arrest bail after noting admissions and central involvement in alleged GST evasion of over ₹20 crore. It held that economic offences require strict scrutiny and custodial interrogation may be necessary.
Holding that the GST Act prescribes separate assessment and limitation for each year, the Court quashed a notice combining multiple tax periods. Authorities were granted liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the Act.
The Court ordered adjudication of GST show cause notice on royalty but directed that no recovery be made and implementation be kept in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
The High Court set aside the adjudication order for FY 2019-20, holding that the benefit of Circular No.183/15/2022-GST cannot be denied where identical errors exist. Authorities were directed to reconsider the matter under applicable GST Circulars.
Gujarat High Court held that the respondent officer could not have assumed jurisdiction for reopening the assessment since there was nothing which indicate that petitioner has participated knowingly in the sham transaction. Accordingly, order is quashed and set aside.
The High Court revoked cancellation of GST registration after accepting the petitioner’s explanation of financial and health difficulties. However, restoration was made conditional upon filing pending returns and restricting ITC utilization until departmental scrutiny.
The High Court set aside a Section 63 GST assessment passed against an unregistered contractor after authorities admitted confusion caused by identical names and incorrect reliance on WAMIS data.
The High Court set aside a Section 148 notice issued without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B. It held that such action was without jurisdiction.
