The case concerns a tender for sand quarries stalled despite receiving required clarifications on ITR and VAT issues. The Court held that authorities must act promptly once clarifications are issued and directed transmission of records for immediate decision-making.
Court held that barter transactions between Jammu & Kashmir and PoK qualify as intra-state supplies, making GST applicable. The ruling upholds Section 74 notices as valid and directs traders to pursue statutory remedies.
The Court ruled that reassessment could not be initiated based on audit objections containing factual errors and overlooking prior accepted depreciation. The decision underscores that reopening must be based on proper evaluation of facts, not mere audit remarks.
The High Court declined to interfere with a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) after the Department failed to produce a 2008 notice. The Court directed the assessee’s legal heirs to pursue the statutory appeal, noting the factual dispute requires appellate examination.
Court held that Customs cannot rely on oral waivers of show cause notices. Detained goods must be released if statutory requirements under Customs Act are not followed.
Court held that authorities failed to consider petitioner’s earlier deposit of over ₹2.01 crore before imposing penalties. Matter was directed to GST Appellate Tribunal for fresh evaluation, with permission to appeal without further pre-deposit.
The High Court held that the petitioner must pursue the appellate remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, declining to interfere with the ₹3.38 crore GST demand. The ruling emphasizes that writ jurisdiction cannot substitute statutory appeal mechanisms.
The Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without specifying a date and time for a personal hearing. The cancellation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
The Allahabad High Court held that Section 29 reassessment applies only where turnover has escaped assessment. ITC claims already accepted in original assessments cannot trigger reassessment. Orders attempting to reverse ITC alone were declared without jurisdiction and invalid.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging a GST demand linked to suspected fraudulent ITC transactions. It held that factual disputes must be resolved through the appellate remedy under Section 107. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal with the required pre-deposit.
