The Court held that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under Section 112 of the GST Act. It granted liberty to approach the Tribunal and disposed of the writ petition.
The court addressed whether exporters can recover duty paid despite time-barred rebate claims. It held that a fresh application under Section 142(3) can be filed to seek re-credit or refund of excess duty.
The Court dismissed the appeal as the delay was not properly explained. It reaffirmed that strict compliance with limitation rules applies equally to government bodies.
The case clarifies that Section 74 requires clear evidence of fraud or wilful suppression. Mere reliance on third-party alerts without independent inquiry is insufficient. The ruling protects taxpayers from mechanical and assumption-based proceedings.
The Court held that the matter was already settled by an earlier decision on identical facts. It extended the same relief, emphasizing consistency in judicial rulings.
The Court held that electricity duty collected by a licensee is not its own liability but that of consumers. As a result, Section 43B was found inapplicable and the disallowance was rightly deleted.
The Court held that input tax credit cannot be denied solely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax without examining the genuineness of transactions. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of whether the assessee discharged its burden of proof.
The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be sustained without clear findings that suppliers failed to pay tax. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper examination.
The Court set aside the GST demand as the adjudicating authority failed to consider the taxpayer’s submissions. It held that lack of reasoning invalidates the order.
The Court quashed all notices and orders as the matter was identical to earlier decisions. It ruled that consistency with precedent requires setting aside such proceedings.
