The Bombay High Court held that vague allegations of natural justice violations cannot justify skipping the appellate remedy under the Customs Act.
The issue was whether expiry of the revocation timeline bars restoration of GST registration. The Court ruled that authorities can restore registration when pending returns and full tax liabilities are cleared as per Rule 22.
The High Court found prima facie merit in the challenge to a state reimbursement clause restricting ITC. Show cause notices seeking reversal of ITC were stayed pending further hearing.
The court clarified that exemption notifications must be applied as issued and cannot be altered by importing supposed intent. Any attempt to add or curtail benefits retrospectively was held to be beyond legislative delegation.
The High Court held that a show cause notice lacking factual details cannot sustain cancellation of GST registration. The cancellation order was set aside and fresh opportunity was granted to the taxpayer.
The case concerned a challenge to VAT enforcement on liquor retail shops. The Court ruled that statutory tax requirements cannot be stayed when the law itself is not under challenge.
The High Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction where allegations of fraudulent ITC involved complex facts. Taxpayers were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
The High Court held that GST demands for periods prior to approval of a resolution plan cannot survive. All such claims stand extinguished once the plan is finally approved.
The High Court dismissed a repeat contempt plea after noting that compliance with the original writ order had already been acknowledged earlier.
The court held that after approval of a resolution plan, mesne profit claims cannot proceed against the company or its new management, though quantification may continue against erstwhile management.
