The High Court quashed an ex parte GST adjudication passed without personal hearing. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after the Supreme Court decides the pending challenge to limitation-extension notifications.
The issue was whether a search-based assessment could be completed within 12 months after a Supreme Court ruling. The Court held that only the 60-day extended period under section 153B applied, rendering the assessment time-barred.
The issue was whether one assessment order could cover three different tax years. The Court held that such composite orders are impermissible and directed fresh, year-wise assessments.
The issue involved two separate GST assessment orders issued for the same tax period. The Court ordered consolidated adjudication to avoid overlapping demands, subject to partial pre-deposit by the assessee.
The High Court held that a single GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is illegal and without jurisdiction. All proceedings based on such a composite notice were quashed.
The dispute concerned denial of ITC on imports due to non-reflection of IGST in the GST portal. The Court relied on customs reports confirming payment and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer were without authority after introduction of the faceless scheme. All notices, assessment orders, and demands were set aside on jurisdictional grounds.
The High Court set aside a GST demand raised without a personal hearing and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, noting that the validity of limitation-extension notifications is pending before the Supreme Court.
The Court ruled that Central tax proceedings should not continue while a related State tax appeal remains undecided. Central authorities were permitted to act only after conclusion of the State appellate proceedings.
The High Court remanded the matter after holding that the taxpayer was denied a fair hearing when the show cause notice and order were not properly communicated. Fresh adjudication was directed after granting an opportunity to reply.
