The High Court held that interest under Section 234B must be waived where conflicting judicial decisions created uncertainty regarding tax exemption. The rejection of the waiver application was set aside.
The Court held that cancellation for non-filing of returns can be reconsidered if the taxpayer files pending returns and clears dues, directing authorities to consider restoration.
The court held that jurisdiction existed when the order was passed post-circular. It upheld penalties for fraudulent ITC and fake invoices, rejecting the jurisdiction challenge.
The Court quashed the order passed without response, allowing reconsideration after deposit and hearing. It emphasized the need for fair opportunity before adjudication.
The Court held that refund rejection on limitation grounds was invalid as authorities failed to consider the Supreme Court’s COVID-related exclusion period. It directed fresh adjudication with hearing.
The Court condoned a 179-day delay and admitted the appeal on questions involving Section 263. It will examine whether the Tribunal erred in quashing revisionary action.
The Court held that a summary in Form DRC-01 cannot substitute a proper show cause notice under Section 73. Proceedings initiated without a valid SCN were set aside as contrary to law.
The Court allowed the assessee to seek restoration even after delay in filing revocation application. It held that compliance with pending returns and payment of dues enables reconsideration under Rule 22(4).
The High Court held that cross-state transfer of ITC on amalgamation cannot be denied due to GST portal limitations. It ruled that statutory rights override technical restrictions.
The Court clarified that recovery actions must be confined to the assessee liable for tax. Attaching a director’s personal account without evidence of liability was held unlawful. The judgment underscores limits on recovery powers.
