The Court ruled that reversal of ITC after a long delay does not negate interest liability. It emphasized that interest arises from the time of wrongful claim until reversal. Key takeaway: delayed correction does not absolve liability.
The Court held that service of notice solely through the GST portal is not valid where the taxpayer is not monitoring it. It set aside the ex-parte assessment for lack of proper service.
The case addressed whether a demand based on a draft order can be enforced. The Court held that tax liability crystallizes only after final assessment. Key takeaway: draft orders have no enforceable value.
The court examined allegations of fraudulent ITC claims and granted bail after noting that the investigation had been completed. The ruling highlights that continued custody is not necessary once key investigative steps are over.
The Court found no separate evidence linking the employee to wrongdoing beyond what was considered for the employer. It ruled that penalty cannot be sustained without independent justification.
The Court held that rejecting an appeal for wrong jurisdiction without proper mechanism was a mistake. It restored the appeal and directed its transmission to the correct authority.
The court held that recovery proceedings cannot continue without considering the taxpayer’s objections. Authorities must decide representations before enforcing attachment.
The issue involved limitation for initiating proceedings where no statutory time limit exists. The Court upheld that actions must still be within a reasonable period. The takeaway is that absence of explicit limitation does not permit indefinite action.
Gauhati High Court rules GSTR-1 vs GSTR-3B mismatch from clerical errors cannot trigger automatic tax recovery without Rule 88C process; ITC denial for FY 2018-19 invalid due to Section 16(5).
India cuts excise duty on petrol and diesel to offset global oil price surge amid war. Move aims to reduce fuel costs, curb inflation, and protect consumers and businesses.
