The High Court quashed the GST cancellation proceedings after finding that the show cause notice did not specify the alleged contraventions or shortcomings. The Court held that absence of material particulars violated the prescribed procedure under GST law.
The Madras High Court held that manufacturers of alcoholic liquor cannot be denied C-Forms for inter-State ENA purchases because the GST Council had consciously maintained status quo on ENA taxation. The Court ruled that GST indecision cannot obstruct the right to trade.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer’s detailed reply and supporting documents were not considered before passing the order. The Court directed fresh adjudication through a reasoned order.
The Calcutta High Court permitted withdrawal of appeals after noting that the constitutional validity issue had already been settled. The Court allowed the appellant to pursue fresh appeals on merits before the appellate authority.
The Madras High Court permitted Nidhi companies to submit fresh replies against NDH-4 rejection orders and directed authorities to reconsider the applications after granting a hearing. The Court kept the challenge to the validity of the amended provisions open.
The Rajasthan High Court refused bail in a case involving alleged large-scale GST evasion through fake firms, bogus invoices, and fraudulent e-way bills. The Court held that serious economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies require a stricter approach in bail matters.
The Rajasthan High Court held that GST authorities cannot reopen issues already adjudicated by the Authority for Advance Ruling without fresh material or change in facts. The Court quashed show cause notices alleging misclassification of tobacco products under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
Madras High Court held that the Central Board of Trustees under the EPF Act can challenge Tribunal orders under Article 226 since the constitutional right to seek judicial review cannot be denied.
The High Court held that investment-linked tax incentives under the 2012 industrial policy could continue unless specifically withdrawn or rescinded. The ruling directed authorities to reconsider the claim in light of Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Hero Motocorp.
The High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the hearing notice was received by the taxpayer only after the hearing date. The Court held that denial of adequate opportunity violated principles of natural justice.
