The Court held that the SCN lacked mandatory hearing details, making the adjudication unsustainable. The order was set aside for violating Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice.
The Court held that late audit by the state-appointed Sub-auditor justified condonation of delay in filing the return. It found that the authority failed to consider mandatory guidelines requiring examination of audit-related delays. The impugned orders were quashed and fresh return filing was permitted.
Delhi High Court rules that GST authorities acted mechanically and ignored submitted documents when cancelling registration. The registration is restored, and fresh adjudication is ordered.
The Court held that an expired e-way bill alone does not prove tax evasion, especially when delay was caused by the driver’s illness. The penalty orders were set aside.
The Court set aside the ex-parte GST demand order after noting the petitioner’s medical condition prevented participation in proceedings. A fresh opportunity was granted subject to payment of costs.
Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST order and remitted the matter to the revenue for reconsideration. The period until the Supreme Court’s decision is excluded for limitation purposes. The ruling underscores adherence to due process in tax adjudication.
The High Court noted that the inquiry was conducted hastily with limited time for reply and directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider all issues lawfully. The key takeaway is that disciplinary action must follow fair procedure.
The High Court held that a confiscation notice issued under Section 130 could not be based solely on record-keeping violations under Section 35. The ruling confirms that tax liability must be determined first under Sections 73 or 74.
The Court ruled that tyres and tubes were part of the registered spare-parts list, validating the Tribunal’s decision to cancel the CST penalty. The judgment reinforces strict scrutiny before sustaining misrepresentation penalties.
The Court directed the Pollution Control Board to decide the petitioner’s application within six weeks after noting the pending recommendation. The ruling ensures timely action without addressing merits.
