The High Court found prima facie overlap between two assessment proceedings for the same tax period. The demand was remitted for fresh consideration after allowing the taxpayer to file a reply.
The Bombay High Court set aside GST orders as they were based solely on Rule 96(10), which was omitted without a saving clause, and remanded no further action under that rule.
The Court restored GST registration after accepting that non-filing of returns for six months was caused by genuine illness and financial constraints. Restoration was granted subject to strict compliance conditions.
The Delhi High Court upheld exclusion of multiple comparables after finding them functionally different from a low-risk investment advisory service provider. It held that such findings were factual and did not raise any substantial question of law.
The court held that an appeal filed beyond the maximum condonable period under GST law cannot be entertained, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to override statutory timelines.
The court refused to grant a mandatory stay on income tax demand where the taxpayer had earlier proposed paying dues in instalments. The ruling underscores that voluntary payment proposals can weaken claims for interim protection.
The Court held that customs officials acting in their official capacity cannot be cross-examined as a matter of right. Cross-examination is permissible only where specific prejudice is shown.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer were without authority when the faceless assessment scheme applied. Relying on binding precedents, the writ petition was disposed of in favour of the taxpayer, reaffirming NFAC’s exclusive role.
The Court condoned an extraordinary delay after finding that the appellant was genuinely pursuing settlement under a State-backed amnesty scheme. Procedural delay was held insufficient to defeat substantive rights.
The Court held that penalty proceedings under the KGST Act cannot be initiated after an unreasonable delay. Even without a statutory limitation period, action must be taken within a reasonable timeframe.
