The issue involved GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns and inability to apply online due to time limits. The court allowed manual filing of revocation and directed authorities to decide it within a fixed timeframe.
The court addressed cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns and procedural delays. It allowed the taxpayer to submit a manual revocation application, directing authorities to decide it on merits within a fixed timeline.
The issue involved denial of ITC without evaluating submitted documents. The Court directed authorities to reconsider objections with evidence of genuine transactions. The key takeaway is that authorities must examine taxpayer replies before issuing final decisions.
The issue involved alleged cyber fraud where funds were credited to the petitioner’s account. The Court granted relief considering absence of criminal history and willingness to return the money.
The Court held that disputed issues and ongoing statutory proceedings cannot be challenged through a writ petition. It emphasized that proper remedies must be pursued before competent forums.
Court found that the appellant failed to clearly identify which exceptional clause applied. Since the tax effect was below Rs.2 crores and no valid exception was demonstrated, the Court held that there was no reason to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application were dismissed.
The court declined to decide intermediary classification and directed the petitioner to pursue remedies before the appellate authority. All issues were kept open for independent adjudication.
The Court held that rejection of NBFC registration surrender solely due to meeting PBC was unsustainable without giving an opportunity of hearing. RBI was directed to reconsider the application afresh.
The court held that interest cannot be claimed where delay in receiving rent was caused by the landlord’s own inaction. Procedural compliance for withdrawal was found essential.
The Court held that the amendment to Rule 89(5) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively to earlier refund claims. Refund denial was set aside as authorities failed to consider binding legal developments.
