The issue was imposition of a higher penalty than proposed in the show cause notice. The court set aside the order, holding it violates Section 75(7) and is without jurisdiction.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated after four years without fresh evidence. The court held such reopening invalid when based on existing records and no failure of disclosure.
The Court examined whether the matter required immediate intervention. It held that the issues deserved consideration and granted ad-interim relief. This ensures status quo until final adjudication.
The Court noted that the taxpayer could not upload large volumes of documents due to technical limits. It held that authorities should adopt a practical and humane approach, including on-site verification. Failure to do so vitiates proceedings.
The issue was whether two adjudication orders for the same tax period constituted overlapping proceedings under GST law. The court held that proceedings on different issues—short payment vs. excess ITC—do not violate the bar on parallel actions.
The issue was whether a taxpayer could seek revocation after missing the statutory deadline due to non-filing of returns. The court allowed manual filing, holding that authorities should consider such applications on merits despite procedural delay.
The case involved GST cancellation for non-filing of returns during financial hardship post-Covid. The court allowed manual revocation filing, emphasizing relief where delay was unintentional.
The issue was whether an adjudication order ignoring GST already paid under reverse charge could be challenged. The court allowed rectification under Section 161, emphasizing correction of apparent errors.
The issue was whether recovery proceedings should continue during a pending GST dispute. The court granted relief by requiring a 10% deposit and staying coercive action until the Tribunal decides.
The Court held that combining multiple financial years in a single show cause notice violates the CGST Act scheme. It quashed the notice and allowed fresh issuance as per law.
