The issue concerned release of ₹58 lakh seized during GST search. The Court disposed of the petition after authorities agreed to release the amount within ten days, while allowing further legal action if required.
The Court declined interference as proceedings were already initiated by both departments. Petitioners were directed to respond to notices through proper channels.
The case addressed denial of refund of VAT pre-deposit made through ITC. The Court held that Section 142(6) mandates cash refund and overrides conflicting departmental circulars, ensuring taxpayer relief.
The Court held that Section 107(11) expressly prohibits remand to the adjudicating authority. The appellate authority must decide the case within prescribed options.
The Court held that cash is not covered under the term “things” in Section 67(2). Seizure of currency was declared without authority of law.
The Court held that the impugned order should be challenged through statutory appeal. Writ jurisdiction was not invoked due to the availability of an effective remedy.
The Court ruled that cancellation cannot be applied retrospectively without proper application of mind. The order was quashed for lack of objective reasoning.
The Court held that cancellation based on reasons not mentioned in the SCN is unsustainable. The retrospective cancellation was modified to align with procedural fairness.
The court set aside denial of ITC refund based on intermediary classification without proper examination. It remanded the matter for fresh adjudication considering agreements and legal precedents.
The High Court held that Section 206C(1C) applies only to lawful mining arrangements involving lease or licence. It ruled that compounding fees from illegal mining are outside its scope and not subject to TCS.
