The court examined cancellation of GST registration issued without stating any reasons. It held such non-speaking orders invalid and restored registration, emphasizing that reasoned orders are mandatory.
The High Court ruled that rejecting condonation requests through mere communication without a speaking order is invalid. Authorities must pass reasoned decisions after proper consideration.
The issue concerns whether startups can sell regulated products without BIS certification. It is established that certification is mandatory under QCOs, and non-compliance can lead to penalties, bans, or closure.
The Court found that tax already paid cannot be demanded again through adjudication proceedings. It allowed the taxpayer to seek rectification with proof of payment.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to seek revocation even after expiry of the statutory timeline. It directed authorities to consider delay condonation and decide the matter on merits.
The Court held that tax authorities cannot coerce payment when no demand has been raised. It directed cooperation in investigation while protecting the taxpayer from undue pressure.
The issue was whether a GST order passed without considering reply should be set aside in writ. The Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal with delay condonation, leaving merits open.
The issue was whether a delayed writ against a GST order should be entertained. The Court declined to examine merits and allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation.
The issue was whether relief could be granted against a GST assessment order through writ. The Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal with delay condonation, leaving merits open.
Madras High Court held that section 76 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are not applicable since GST component is already remitted by GAIL [transmission vertical]. Accordingly, provisions of section 76 of CGST cannot be invoked. Hence, present petition is allowed.
