Whether interest can be demanded without being specified in the show cause notice. Ruling & Takeaway: The Court held that interest not quantified in the notice cannot be added later, reaffirming strict compliance with Section 75(7).
Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable where the GST Act provides a complete appellate framework. The petitioner was relegated to pursue the remedy under Section 107.
The court held that issuing a single GST notice for multiple tax periods is illegal. All consequential proceedings were quashed, with liberty to initiate fresh action lawfully.
The High Court set aside an ITC reversal demand after finding that no date, time, or venue for personal hearing was communicated. The ruling underscores that statutory hearing requirements must be strictly followed before confirming GST demands.
The issue was whether reassessment proceedings could continue when sanction was granted by an incorrect authority. The Court ruled that lack of approval from the designated authority vitiated the entire reassessment.
The High Court held that an appeal filed pursuant to its earlier order could not be dismissed on limitation. The rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Courtquashed a best judgment assessment and related appellate order after finding consensus on denial of hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with a speaking order, subject to a 10% pre-deposit.
The High Court quashed both adjudication and appellate orders after finding that GST return data was not examined. The matter was remanded for fresh decision with opportunity of hearing.
The High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed long after the assessment order. Delay could not be justified on the plea of inability to access the GST portal.
The High Court declined to entertain writ petitions challenging an ex parte GST order, holding that an effective statutory appeal was available. The ruling reinforces that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when alternative remedies exist.
