The Court ordered respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the petitioner’s GST refund representation. No findings were made on merits, and all issues remain open.
The case concerns enforcement of a bank guarantee after failure to meet EPCG export obligations. The Court declined to examine merits but directed completion of adjudication on the show-cause notice, clarifying that further action depends on the outcome.
The High Court held that Section 130 cannot be invoked for excess stock found during survey; authorities must follow Sections 73/74 for tax determination. Orders under Section 130 were quashed.
Since valid service of notice was a mandatory jurisdictional requirement before initiating reassessment proceedings, therefore, purported notices issued under Section 148 including reassessment proceedings under
Telangana High Court held that amount paid towards cancellation of agreement is liable to be disallowed under section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act since the no condition was stipulated in original Memorandum of Understanding hence in absence of contractual obligation the disallowance of said amount is justified.
The Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled merely for non-filing of returns if the taxpayer has fully paid the tax, interest, and late fees. Authorities must permit return filing and revoke cancellation upon compliance.
The Court addressed whether a second CGST demand could stand when the DGST had already raised a similar demand for the same period. It held that the petitioner may appeal the CGST order without additional pre-deposit because the earlier deposit covered the same amount.
The Court held that the show cause notice provided less than seven days to respond, contrary to the prescribed procedure. The assessment and related notices were set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.
The Kerala High Court ordered abeyance of recovery proceedings under a penalty order while the stay petition is considered, ensuring no enforcement until a decision is made.
The High Court refused to entertain the challenge to a sale notice, holding that the petitioner must pursue the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The ruling reiterates that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists.
