The Court found that reassessment must proceed through the faceless regime and not through a jurisdictional officer. Since the notice was issued in breach of this mandate, both the notice and assessment order were quashed.
Delhi High Court stayed the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account, allowing filing of appeal against assessment order without further pre-deposit, pending departmental adjudication.
Kerala High Court held that proceedings against petitioner [recipient] for Input Tax Credit mis-match cannot be sustained since no proceedings have been initiated against the supplier. Accordingly, proceedings initiated against recipient is not legally sustainable.
Kerala High Court held that benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) admissible even though payment was affected after cut of date as extension since payment was made within period extended on account of COVID-19 pandemic.
The Delhi High Court held that interest must be paid after refund re-credit was delayed because PMT-03 did not reflect due to technical glitches. The Court directed authorities to process and sanction the interest within two months.
The Court held that adjudication by an officer who had previously conducted an audit on the same issue displayed a pre-disposed mind, setting aside the impugned order for independent reconsideration.
The Court held that a provisional bank account attachment under Section 83 had lapsed because the statutory one-year validity period had already expired. It ordered de-freezing of the account while allowing show cause proceedings to continue.
The Court held that a provisional attachment order under Section 83 ceases to operate after one year. As the order had expired, the bank and Sub-Registrar were directed not to restrict transactions.
The Court examined whether rectified refund applications filed after deficiency memos remained within the two-year limit. It held that the authority acted as per prevailing rules and the claim was time-barred.
ITC cannot be mechanically denied to purchasers even if invoices are missing in GSTR-2B. Key takeaway: the ruling safeguards taxpayers paying GST in good faith.
