The Court held that documents seized during a survey justified rejection of accounts and best judgment assessment. Partial relief granted by the Tribunal was found adequate, warranting no further interference.
The Court quashed an ex-parte GST order where the initial notice did not comply with procedural requirements, emphasizing proper reissuance of notice and lawful proceedings.
The Court set aside the dismissal of a GST refund appeal, finding the Appellate Authority miscalculated the limitation period. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with proper hearing.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to file a fresh reply after initially failing to respond to a GST notice. Relief is conditional on depositing 50% of disputed tax, after which the authority must reconsider the matter.
The court held that a works contractor cannot challenge a GST assessment months after becoming aware of it, as a rectification application was already pending.
The Court ruled that deductions could not be denied when ST-15 forms were genuine though stolen, and the assessee had no role in the theft. It held that denying benefit would unjustly penalize the assessee despite compliance with statutory requirements.
The Bombay High Court ruled that the six-month limitation under Section 254(2) starts from the date of receipt of the ITAT order, not the date of its passing, ensuring petitioners can file timely rectification applications.
The Court held that the show-cause notice under Section 73 CGST did not lack jurisdiction. It directed the petitioner to file a reply and allowed the Adjudicating Authority to examine all objections independently.
The High Court allowed a religious society to submit delayed audit documents, citing the treasurer’s age and Covid-19 as valid reasons, directing authorities to reconsider exemption under Section 11.
Court directed deposit of 25% disputed tax, personal hearing, and submission of reply to ensure due process before final GST order.
