The Court held that a CGST assessment order must be challenged through statutory appeal, not writ jurisdiction. It clarified that alternate remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court.
The Court held that cancellation for non-filing of returns can be revisited if the taxpayer clears dues and files returns. Authorities may restore registration under Rule 22(4) upon compliance.
The Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) cures delayed ITC claims for earlier years. The matter was remanded for fresh verification subject to submission of supporting documents.
The issue was whether a writ could bypass the statutory appeal against a GST order. The court held it could not, but allowed filing of appeal within four weeks without limitation objections.
The issue was whether passing an order without prior hearing notice violates natural justice. The court held that same-day hearing without intimation is invalid and set aside the demand.
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration allegedly without proper hearing. The court allowed the petitioner to approach the appellate tribunal, emphasizing use of statutory remedies.
The issue was whether processed tobacco should be taxed as raw leaf or manufactured product. The court held it as raw tobacco to avoid unequal tax treatment for identical goods.
The Court held that the assessment confirmed without a reply warranted reconsideration. It remanded the case for fresh adjudication upon filing of response and documents.
The Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal became operational, disputes must be pursued through the statutory appeal mechanism. It directed filing of appeal within prescribed timelines.
The Court held that where corresponding sales are accepted, only the profit element in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. It upheld the ITAT’s restriction of disallowance to 10% and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
