The Court set aside the ex-parte GST order after finding the taxpayer had no proper chance to respond to the show cause notice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication while the validity of related notifications remains pending before the Supreme Court.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment on the basis of information made available on Insight Portal without verification of information by jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid in law. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
The Court held that seizure under section 129(3) was unsustainable where the goods were found to belong to the consignor. It ruled that no proceedings could continue against the transporter in the absence of adverse findings.
Delhi High Court held that writ petition in cases involving large scale availment of Input Tax Credit [ITC] or evasion of payment of GST not entertained and court has relegated parties to appellate remedy.
Bombay High Court held that delay in filing of Form No. 9A due to first year of its introduction is genuine and hence the same is condoned. Further, also held that if delay is not condoned there will be genuine hardship to charitable trust.
The Court allowed forensic examination of an advocate’s seized CPU under strict safeguards after a GST search raised concerns about attorney-client privilege. It directed limited access, mandated presence of IT experts, and prohibited coercive action pending further review.
The Court held that a reassessment notice generated on time but uploaded the next day is time-barred. Proceedings were set aside because despatch, not generation, determines the date of issuance.
The Court allowed a petitioner to file an appeal on classification of exported goods and sought clarification on which authority can issue SCNs under Customs and GST laws.
The Court set aside an appeal dismissal due to one-day notice for personal hearing. The petitioner will now have a proper hearing with at least a week’s notice.
Court upheld Tribunal’s finding that Assessing Officer examined cash deposits and adopted a permissible view by treating them as sales. Since the issue had been enquired into and two views were possible, revision under Section 263 could not be justified.
