The High Court examined whether a delayed GST appeal could be rejected outright. Balancing equities, it allowed the appeal to be heard on merits subject to payment of costs, setting aside the dismissal order.
The High Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside redemption and re-export relief that was never challenged by the Department. Issues that had attained finality could not be reopened in an assessee’s appeal.
The High Court examined whether a prolonged delay in filing VAT appeals could be condoned. Holding that the appellants failed to explain their inaction for nearly six years, the Court dismissed both the delay applications and the appeals.
The High Court upheld deletion of additions where share sale transactions were supported by contract notes, demat records, and bank statements, and no contrary evidence was found.
The High Court held that independent dyeing and processing do not amount to manufacture under the Textile Committee Act. Cess demands were quashed for lack of statutory basis and limitation.
The Court held that an assurance of payment given during routine business dealings does not amount to cheating without proof of dishonest intent at inception. Since the dispute was purely commercial and partial payments were made, criminal charges were quashed.
The High Court ruled that clubbing several tax periods into one GST show cause notice is illegal. All proceedings based on such a consolidated notice were quashed, with liberty given to restart proceedings lawfully.
The High Court restrained seizure of perishable goods where prior rulings treated vital wheat gluten and wheat flour as identical. Authorities were directed to decide the issue after personal hearing.
The High Court upheld dismissal of a GST appeal filed six days late, holding that neither appellate authorities nor writ courts can condone delay beyond the maximum period set by law.
The High Court examined whether a personal hearing could be fixed before the last date for filing a reply to a GST show cause notice. It held that such a procedure violates the statutory scheme and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
