The court held that appeals filed beyond the three-month period plus one-month condonable window under Section 107 cannot be entertained. The ruling reinforces strict adherence to limitation under the CGST Act.
The court ruled that a petitioner cannot re-agitate merits after appeal and writ remedies fail on limitation. Statutory timelines under GST were strictly enforced.
The ruling held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the permissible period were legally unsustainable. The decision reinforces strict adherence to limitation provisions.
The High Court found that the appeal was rejected ex-parte without valid service of hearing notice. The ruling stresses that portal uploading alone is insufficient when communication is disputed.
The issue was whether timely issuance was enough when notice was served after limitation. The court held that delayed service under section 143(2) invalidates the entire assessment.
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer doesn t have authority to declare mortgage as void-ab-initio. Tax Recovery Officer can only enforce attachments under the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
The High Court set aside GST orders where the show cause notice was served only on the portal after cancellation of registration, holding that principles of natural justice were violated.
The court ruled that depositing money does not convert a non-bailable GST offence into a bailable one, yet upheld bail considering custody, punishment limits, and surrounding circumstances.
The court held that an appeal refiled within the CBIC amnesty period could not be dismissed on limitation. The appellate order was set aside and the appeal restored for fresh consideration.
The court held that Section 74 of the CGST Act does not permit consolidated show cause notices for multiple financial years. Notices clubbing different tax periods were therefore set aside.
