The issue involved challenge to a GST demand order where appeal was delayed. The Court allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation, ensuring the matter can be decided on merits.
The issue was a GST order passed without considering the taxpayer’s reply or giving reasons. The Court allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation and protected the taxpayer from coercive recovery.
The court examined whether reassessment could proceed without any incriminating material from search. It held that absence of such material vitiates jurisdiction, leading to quashing of proceedings.
The issue was rejection of a rectification application due to delay while ITC was disputed. The Court allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation, emphasizing appellate remedy over technical rejection.
A statutory tax charge d noidt constitute a secured interest under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) therefore, the Court directed the removal of the TNVAT Department’s attachment over the corporate debtor’s property.
The case examined whether a single show cause notice could cover multiple tax periods. The Court held such consolidation violates the GST framework and quashed the notice with liberty to reissue year-wise.
The case addressed whether a refund rejection without granting a personal hearing and providing only seven days to respond was valid. The court set aside the order, holding that such action violated Rule 92(3) and principles of natural justice.
The court refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that an effective appellate remedy was available under the GST law. It emphasized that factual disputes and corrigendum validity must be examined through statutory appeals, not writ jurisdiction.
The Court held that Rule 86A applies only when the assessee fraudulently avails ITC. Since the allegation concerned the recipient’s ITC, the notice was without jurisdiction and was set aside.
The case addressed an assessment order passed without considering the taxpayer’s response to the show cause notice. The Court quashed the order and allowed fresh adjudication subject to a 50% pre-deposit, emphasizing procedural fairness.
