The Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to submit a manual application for revocation of cancelled GST registration after the GST portal did not allow online filing due to limitation issues.
The Telangana High Court quashed GST refund rejection orders after finding that the authority failed to consider detailed replies filed by the taxpayer. The Court directed fresh adjudication after granting a rehearing opportunity.
The High Court held that documents received through official international channels carry presumption of genuineness but must still satisfy proof requirements under Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Madras High Court set aside a Section 74 GST assessment order involving mismatch between GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-7 returns in government contract transactions. The Court ordered fresh adjudication after noting that 23% of the disputed tax had already been recovered.
The Calcutta High Court directed GSTN authorities to carry out backend changes after the GST portal failed to process the taxpayer’s request to opt out of the QRMP Scheme. The Court permitted migration to monthly GST return filing from March 2026.
The Telangana High Court held that time spent pursuing a rectification application and writ proceedings may be considered while deciding delay condonation in a GST appeal. The Court permitted the assessee to approach the appellate authority on merits.
The Gujarat High Court quashed reassessment proceedings after finding that the seized loose paper referred to non-agricultural land rates recorded after the petitioner had already sold agricultural land. The Court held that reopening based on hypothetical assumptions and unrelated material was unsustainable.
The Bombay High Court set aside GST adjudication orders after finding that no personal hearing was granted before passing adverse orders. The Court held that Section 75(4) requires hearing even if replies to notices were not filed.
The Telangana High Court set aside a penalty under Section 271D after finding that the assessment order contained no recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. The Court held that Supreme Court precedent on mandatory satisfaction was binding on tax authorities.
Bombay High Court held that transitional CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because ST-3 returns were filed late. The Court emphasized that substantive credit eligibility must be examined based on actual tax payment evidence.
