The case involved issuance of notice only through the portal after cancellation of registration. The Court held that absence of physical service violated natural justice and invalidated the order.
The case questions validity of time-extension notifications allegedly issued without GST Council approval. The Court found arguable issues and granted interim protection against enforcement.
The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of penalty due to lack of clarity in the notice.
The issue involved delay in processing an NOC application due to alleged disputes over development rights. The Court held that without any injunction, authorities cannot indefinitely withhold approval.
The Court held that absence of cogent reasoning on jurisdiction and time-bar issues invalidated the order. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Court held that GST authorities cannot rely on seized documents that are missing or untraceable during adjudication. It ruled that proceedings must be based only on available records with fair hearing.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to file a fresh application for revocation of GST registration after failing to reply to the show cause notice. It held that the authority must consider the new application independently.
The Court directed the petitioner to first seek rectification of the order before challenging recovery proceedings under GST law. It held that the proper officer must consider such application, even manually if required.
The issue was attachment of a taxpayer’s bank account for another person’s dues without notice. The Court held such action invalid due to violation of natural justice and lack of prior liability determination.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition as no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. It allowed withdrawal with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
