The Court held that voluntary cancellation of GST registration does not wipe out liabilities for earlier tax periods. It upheld tax and penalty imposed for 2018-19 due to non-response to notices.
The Court held that clubbing multiple tax periods in one composite show cause notice under Section 74 is illegal. All consequential orders and proceedings were set aside with liberty for fresh action.
The Court granted ad-interim relief, holding prima facie that no under-reporting arose where deduction was claimed based on a binding High Court judgment later overruled. Coercive recovery was stayed.
The Court held that ITC on charges related to transfer of leasehold rights does not fall within blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d). As no fraud or suppression was shown, invocation of Section 74 was without jurisdiction and the notice was quashed.
The Calcutta High Court quashed a GST adjudication order after finding it was based on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice. The ruling reinforces that Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of demand on new or different grounds without prior notice.
The Calcutta High Court held that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely due to disagreement with the Assessing Officers view. Since the AO conducted proper inquiry and followed CBDT instructions, revision was quashed and LTCG treatment on unlisted shares was upheld.
The Gujarat High Court granted bail in a GST ITC fraud case, noting that investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed. Continued custody was held unnecessary at this stage.
The Court held that an appeal filed nearly three years after the original order was barred by limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Uploading the order on the GST portal was deemed valid service.
Orissa High Court held that post search operation all pending assessments/reassessments doesn’t not automatically get abated as provisions of section 158BA(2) of the Income Tax Act. Matter must specifically fall within Block Assessment Scheme for abatement. However, writ dismissed as power under Article 226 not invoked.
The Court upheld condonation of 116 days’ delay in filing revision, holding that internal decision-making in a large organization constituted sufficient cause and warranted limited appellate interference.
