The High Court quashed a service tax demand passed ex parte without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration from the show cause notice stage.
The High Court examined a tax demand arising from ITC mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. It held that authorities must follow the reconciliation procedure prescribed under CBIC Circular before adjudication. The case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Court examined whether authorities can continue blocking ITC beyond the statutory period. It held that restrictions automatically lapse after one year under Rule 86A(3). The blocking was set aside as it exceeded the permissible duration.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to seek stay of recovery by complying with CBIC circular requirements. It held that filing an undertaking and making pre-deposit enables protection from recovery. The key takeaway is that statutory conditions must be fulfilled to avail recovery relief.
The case addressed whether a 247-day delay in filing an appeal could be condoned due to pandemic-related disruptions. The Court condoned the delay citing exceptional circumstances and directed adjudication on merits.
The issue involved denial of a request to summon financial records in a domestic violence proceeding. The Court set aside the order and directed reconsideration after examining ITRs showing actual income.
The High Court set aside demand orders after confirming that the Input Tax Credit had been reversed prior to issuance of the show cause notice. It held that this fact required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
The Court set aside a show cause notice issued for multiple years in a single proceeding. It held that the GST law requires separate assessment for each financial year. The key takeaway is that consolidation of tax periods is not permissible under Section 74.
The Court held that issuing an order before the reply deadline violates natural justice. Even if penalty is paid, authorities must consider objections and pass a reasoned order.
The Court ruled that authorities cannot deny ITC by disregarding binding CBIC circulars. It held that cross-charging of ITC is legally permissible alongside ISD.
