The court held that leased assets qualify for depreciation since they are used in the course of business. It clarified that physical use by the assessee is not required if leasing generates business income.
The dispute involved jurisdiction of customs authorities to levy IGST on imports. The Court ruled that assessment includes all applicable taxes, rejecting the jurisdiction challenge.
The issue was whether arbitral award damages and settlement terms constitute “supply” under GST law. The Court held they do not amount to consideration for supply, and quashed the IGST demand.
The court held that Sections 73 and 74 allow show cause notices for any period, not limited to a financial year. Consolidated notices are valid, subject to limitation checks for each period.
The issue was rejection of a declaration under the dispute resolution scheme citing lack of quantification. The Court held that liability was quantified before the cutoff date and directed acceptance of the declaration.
The issue was cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns and rejection of appeal as time-barred. The Court allowed manual filing of revocation application, emphasizing opportunity for compliance despite delay.
The court held that a show cause notice lacking clear reasons and supporting documents violates natural justice. It quashed the retrospective cancellation, allowing fresh proceedings as per law.
The Court examined whether ITC can be denied when the supplier fails to deposit tax. It upheld the provision, ruling that ITC depends on actual tax payment to the Government. The key takeaway is that purchaser compliance alone is insufficient without supplier tax remittance.
The issue was delay in filing appeal due to alleged non-service of notice. The court allowed appeal filing with delay condonation and granted interim protection from recovery.
The issue involved challenging a GST order through writ instead of appeal. The court allowed withdrawal and permitted filing appeal with possible condonation of delay.
