The Court held that ITC cannot be denied solely because supplier registrations were cancelled retrospectively. It ruled that absence of evidence of collusion requires fresh verification before denying credit.
The Court held that input tax credit can be claimed regardless of the month of purchase. It ruled that the amendment to Section 10(3) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively.
The High Court allowed a taxpayer to seek revocation of GST registration despite a time-barred appeal. It directed authorities to accept a manual application, emphasizing fairness over procedural delay.
The Court held that once a revised return is filed, the original return stands obliterated. Ignoring the revised return was treated as a legal error, leading to remand for fresh assessment.
The High Court observed that personal penalties on directors cannot be imposed without independent proceedings. It emphasized the need for separate registration and proper procedure.
Karnataka High Court held that pigmy agents employed by the Bank can never be treated as business facilitators and qualifies as employees of the Bank and hence commission paid to pigmy agents is clearly exempt from levy of GST in terms of Sl.No.1 of Schedule III. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The court held reassessment invalid where proceedings were based solely on unverified digital material from unrelated parties. It ruled that absence of a live nexus with income escapement makes reopening unsustainable.
Madras High Court held that appropriation of refund made during pendency of an appeal is construed as payment of duty under protest and hence period of limitation doesn’t apply in such case. Accordingly, appeal stand allowed and order is set aside.
The court examined whether reassessment beyond six years was valid without identifying an asset. It held that the absence of any asset in recorded reasons makes extended limitation inapplicable. The key takeaway is that jurisdictional conditions must be strictly satisfied for reopening beyond six years.
The Court held that the appellant was not given a chance to contest the legality of seizure. It ruled that such challenge must be permitted in confiscation proceedings to ensure fair hearing.
