The court held that interest is payable when the actual refund is made after the statutory 90-day period, even if the refund order was passed earlier.
The court set aside a rectification order passed without a DIN and beyond the statutory time limit. The ruling underscores that non-compliance with CBDT DIN rules renders such orders invalid.
The Court quashed a stay rejection that contained no reasoning or findings. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with directions to pass a speaking order.
The decision clarifies that GSTR-9 plays a vital role in reconciling ITC claims. Authorities must reassess demands after examining it.
Relying on the spirit of Section 62, the Court ruled that compliance after delay nullifies best judgment assessments, though interest liability may remain.
With the seizure order set aside, the Court ordered refund of amounts deposited. The decision reinforces proportionality in GST enforcement actions.
The High Court stayed the passing of a final order after a GST demand was challenged for being issued without a DRC-01A pre-consultation notice. Authorities were restrained from concluding adjudication during pendency of the petition.
The High Court declined to interfere with a GST show cause notice, holding that the challenge was premature. The assessee was directed to pursue adjudication and raise all legal submissions.
The High Court held that denying continuation of registration by relying on an undisclosed investigation report violates natural justice. Since the trust was not given access to the material used against it, the order was set aside and remanded.
The Court held that reassessment initiated outside the statutory framework of Section 151A is invalid. All notices and approvals issued by the jurisdictional officer were quashed, with liberty reserved for revival.
