The court examined whether a GST demand could exceed the amount proposed in a show-cause notice. It held that enhancement of demand violates Section 75(7) and set aside the assessment and appellate orders.
The High Court declined to adjudicate a GST demand challenge as a statutory appeal remedy was available. The petitioner was directed to approach the Appellate Authority within a fixed time.
The court examined whether reassessment for one year could be based on information from another year. It held that absence of foundational facts for the relevant year invalidates the notice.
Court held that a cheque initially issued as security can mature into an enforceable liability once loan recall conditions are triggered. Disputed facts on repayment and breach must be examined at trial, not at quashing stage.
The High Court declined to retain the writ once the GST Appellate Tribunal became operational. The dispute was directed to be resolved through the statutory appellate mechanism.
The Court found that confiscation based solely on surplus stock found during survey lacks legal basis. The tax authority was directed to decide the matter afresh after hearing the taxpayer.
The High Court held that company land cannot be attached under PMLA merely because accused persons are shareholders. Shareholding does not confer ownership over corporate assets.
The court examined whether reassessment could be initiated on vague and borrowed satisfaction. It held that absence of a live link between information and the assessee’s case invalidated the notice.
The High Court held that GST demands for periods prior to approval of a resolution plan cannot survive once the plan is sanctioned under the IBC. Past statutory dues not forming part of the plan stand extinguished and cannot be enforced.
The High Court stayed a ₹512 crore GST demand after finding prima facie issues with a notice covering multiple financial years. The matter will be heard alongside similar pending cases.
