The High Court held that once belated ITC stands retrospectively regularised by statute, recovery of interest on the same basis cannot continue. The garnishee proceedings were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
The issue concerned cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and rejection of appeal as time-barred. The High Court restored the registration after noting that all returns were filed and dues paid.
The High Court declined to interfere with GST registration cancellation where the statutory appeal was filed fifteen months late. The ruling reiterates that limitation bars relief when delays are unexplained in pleadings.
The Court rejected the argument that goodwill payments amounted to prohibited fee sharing and dismissed the Revenue’s appeals.
The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹45.36 crore GST demand after the Finance Ministry clarified that Section 86 of the CGST Act imposes joint liability only for goods, not services. The ruling confirms that agents cannot be taxed for services supplied by the principal without statutory backing.
The Bombay High Court stayed the entire tax demand after finding that authorities taxed gross receipts without deducting expenditure. The ruling reiterates that only real income can be brought to tax.
The court examined whether pre-deposit under Section 112 could be enforced when the GST Tribunal was not yet functional. It held that the statutory requirement of pre-deposit still applies and upheld the interim direction.
The court examined whether delay in filing a revised return caused by an audit reporting mistake and COVID-19 disruption should be condoned. It held that the explanation was bona fide and directed authorities to process the revised return afresh.
The case examined whether ITC can be blocked beyond the balance available in the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A. The court held that such negative blocking is impermissible and restricted the blockage to the actual ledger balance.
The High Court held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-argue issues already decided. In the absence of an error apparent on record, the review petition was dismissed.
