The High Court refused to quash a GST show cause notice where the authority had formed prima facie satisfaction of fraudulent ITC availment. The ruling affirms limited judicial interference at the notice stage.
The Court held that employees cannot be held liable for TDS non-deposit when the employer deducts it. The AO must decide representation considering CBDT circular guidance.
High Court held that goods and conveyance detained under GST must be released once penalty is paid, where authorities failed to initiate confiscation after statutory period. Mere delay in payment did not justify continued detention.
The Court admitted the writ challenging GST orders where proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed period. Recovery was stayed subject to a 10% deposit, highlighting limits on delayed adjudication.
The court found that a penalty amounting to nearly 90% of the vehicle’s insured value was excessive. It ruled that only the minimum penalty under the excise rules was justified.
The High Court quashed a penalty show cause notice issued under Section 122, holding that jurisdiction cannot be assumed merely on the basis of a general notification. Fresh proceedings were permitted in accordance with law.
The High Court held that refunds cannot be adjusted against a demand already stayed by the Assessing Officer. It directed refund of amounts adjusted despite the assessee being treated as not in default.
The court examined allegations that an order under Section 74 was passed without supplying seized documents or digital material. The matter was adjourned for the State to clarify whether such copies could be provided.
The issue was whether further GST recovery could be initiated after interest had already been paid. The High Court granted interim protection, restraining recovery on finding a prima facie case based on prior payment.
The Court set aside cancellation of GST registration after finding that it was based solely on an invalid field visit report without witnesses or proper procedure. The ruling emphasizes that unilateral inspections cannot justify cancellation.
