The High Court condoned a 285-day delay in filing a GST appeal and restored the matter for decision on merits, holding that sufficient cause was shown.
The High Court held that passing an assessment order without granting a personal hearing, despite non-response to portal notices, violates procedural fairness and warrants remand.
Since the primary object was the advancement of an object of general public utility without a profit motive, the activities did not constitute trade, commerce, or business. Therefore, the restrictions in the proviso to Section 2(15) were not applicable and assessee was held entitled to the exemption under Section 11.
The High Court held that quick repayment alone cannot establish a paper transaction when identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved through records.
The High Court ruled that penalty proceedings arising from search and initiated in assessment are governed by appeal-linked limitation rules. A penalty passed within six months from receipt of the tribunal order was held valid.
The Court held that issuing a single assessment order covering several financial years is without jurisdiction. Separate proceedings must be initiated for each financial year under GST law.
The judgment clarified that information under Section 148A means a concise narration of alleged escapement, not complete material. The reassessment proceedings were allowed to continue as no jurisdictional defect was found.
The High Court examined whether delay beyond the limit prescribed under GST law could be condoned. It held that appeals filed after the maximum period under Section 107 are not maintainable.
Reiterating limits under Sections 73 and 74, the court ruled that combining several tax years into one GST notice is legally impermissible, though fresh notices may be issued lawfully.
The issue was whether accused persons in alleged GST evasion were entitled to bail. The Court held that the seriousness of the offence and electronic evidence justified rejection of bail.
