The Court examined inclusion in a rowdy register without supporting material and found no criminal cases or evidence. It held that such listing is unlawful without tangible proof and ordered deletion of the entry.
The case involved denial of GST refund due to unclear documentation on shipping details. The Court held that the assessee must be given a chance to submit proper evidence and ordered fresh adjudication.
The issue involved denial of access to seized documents relied upon in a GST notice. The Court held that taxpayers must be given inspection and copies of relied documents before responding.
The Court clarified that local self-government bodies are not automatically exempt from GST on all activities. It ruled that such claims require factual scrutiny and cannot bypass the statutory appellate mechanism.
The case addressed whether multiple financial years can be combined in a single show cause notice under GST law. The Court held such consolidation impermissible, emphasizing that each financial year is a separate tax period.
The case examined whether a tax order for FY 2019–20 was time-barred. The Court held that notification-based extensions validly extended the limitation period, making the order legally valid.
The case examined the legality of imposing both late fee and general penalty for the same default. The Court ruled that such overlapping penalties are unjustified and unsustainable. The decision clarifies that only one penal consequence can be applied in such cases.
The High Court set aside the rejection of GST registration revocation, holding that Rule 23 permits filing within 270 days. It ruled that the authority wrongly rejected the application on delay grounds and directed reconsideration after hearing the taxpayer.
The High Court held that GST revocation cannot be denied solely due to portal time limits where genuine hardship exists. It directed the authority to accept a manual application and decide the matter on merits within a fixed timeframe.
GST registration was cancelled for six months of non-filing of returns, and the taxpayer was unable to apply for revocation due to portal time limits. The High Court directed acceptance of a physical application and ordered a decision within three weeks.
