The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that disputes over an SEZ IGST refund should be examined by the appellate authority. It permitted the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal with all available grounds.
The High Court granted regular bail in a GST fraud prosecution after noting that the investigation had been completed, the complaint had been filed, and charges had already been framed. It held that the allegations would be tested during trial and that prolonged custody was not warranted at that stage.
The High Court held that a taxpayer whose GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns may seek restoration by complying with Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. It directed the authority to consider restoration expeditiously upon filing pending returns and payment of all outstanding dues.
The High Court held that closing the Income Tax portal before the granted response deadline denied the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity. It restored the assessment proceedings and directed the authorities to enable document upload.
The Karnataka High Court allowed withdrawal of the writ petition and granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a single GST assessment order covering multiple assessment years was not valid. The matter was remanded with directions to issue separate proceedings for each assessment year.
The Madras High Court held that fresh proceedings under Sections 73, 74 or 74A can be initiated against legal heirs even if no proceedings were commenced during the deceased taxpayer’s lifetime. It ruled that Section 93 expressly authorizes determination of liability after death, subject to recovery being limited to the inherited estate.
The Calcutta High Court held that a dispute arising from unpaid business invoices was civil in nature and did not disclose the ingredients of offences under the IPC. The criminal proceedings against the directors were accordingly quashed.
The Madras High Court held that two GST assessment orders for the same assessment period were duplicative and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.
The Gujarat High Court held that Customs could not introduce new allegations and evidence through a corrigendum after the adjudication hearing had concluded. It directed the authority to decide the original show cause notice without considering the corrigendum.
