The Court set aside rejection of a waiver application after the taxpayer deposited IGST under RCM in cash, holding that statutory conditions were ultimately satisfied.
The court held that GST demands for periods prior to insolvency resolution could not be raised after approval of the resolution plan, as such claims stood extinguished under insolvency law.
The dispute arose from GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(b). The ruling allowed restoration once statutory dues were paid and returns permitted to be filed.
The dispute concerned whether the limitation period under Section 153C should be counted from the search date or from the date seized documents were handed over. The Court held that the handover date governs, excluding earlier assessment years from reassessment.
The court closed the writ after the State clarified that recovery proceedings were initiated only against the assessee husband. The petitioner was granted liberty to re-approach the court if her property is targeted.
Calcutta High Court held that the right of redemption retained with the borrower under section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act till the Sale is confirmed and sale certificate is issued. Accordingly, revisional applicable is liable to be set aside.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that there is no illegality or irregularity in sanctioning loans on the same day since no rule prohibited such sanction. The prosecution has not established any dishonest intention on the part of the Branch Manager at the time of sanctioning the loan.
Delhi High Court held that summons under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act], is issued for gathering information and providing an opportunity to produce documents, it cannot be considered to be initiation of proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, writ dismissed as premature.
The High Court addressed recovery action taken during pendency of tax appeals and directed the appellate tribunal to hear interim applications swiftly. Recovery was stayed until a specified date.
The Court quashed a GST refund rejection passed without granting the full statutory reply period and personal hearing. It held that non-compliance with Rule 92 vitiates the refund order.
