The Karnataka High Court held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be exercised where the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the possible legal views. The Commissioner’s revisional order and the Tribunal’s order were quashed.
The Gujarat High Court held that the reassessment notice issued under the new regime was time-barred as it was issued after the surviving limitation period prescribed under TOLA and interpreted by the Supreme Court. The notice, order under Section 148A(d), and consequential proceedings were quashed.
The High Court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted. It granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act.
The Uttarakhand High Court permitted the taxpayer to seek revocation of GST registration cancellation after clearing all outstanding dues. It directed the authority to decide the application preferably within four weeks.
The Kerala High Court held that recovery based on an inadvertent cross-utilisation of eligible IGST input tax credit was legally unsustainable. The Court quashed the assessment order after finding the issue covered by an earlier Division Bench ruling.
The Kerala High Court held that a fresh writ petition seeking identical reliefs was not maintainable after an earlier petition on the same cause had been withdrawn without liberty. It ruled that the second petition violated the doctrine of finality of litigation.
The High Court directed the concerned authority to consider the petitioner’s representations on differential GST reimbursement after granting a hearing. It ordered a reasoned decision within six weeks.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the order denying Input Tax Credit and directed fresh adjudication, holding that the issue must be reconsidered in light of earlier Division Bench judgments concerning retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s GST registration and entitlement to ITC.
The Bombay High Court held that a single show cause notice covering multiple financial years under Section 74 of the CGST Act was without jurisdiction. It quashed the show cause notice, adjudication order, and recovery proceedings, while permitting fresh notices for individual financial years if otherwise permissible in law.
The Jharkhand High Court directed the authority to implement the CESTAT order and determine whether a refund with interest or tax with interest was payable. The exercise must be completed within three months after hearing the petitioner, if necessary.
