The issue was whether an adjudication order ignoring GST already paid under reverse charge could be challenged. The court allowed rectification under Section 161, emphasizing correction of apparent errors.
The issue was whether recovery proceedings should continue during a pending GST dispute. The court granted relief by requiring a 10% deposit and staying coercive action until the Tribunal decides.
The Court held that combining multiple financial years in a single show cause notice violates the CGST Act scheme. It quashed the notice and allowed fresh issuance as per law.
The case addressed whether a second GST refund application is maintainable when a prior claim covered the same period. The Court held that no statutory bar exists under Section 54(1), and rejection on technical grounds was invalid.
The Court held that withdrawal of promised electricity duty exemption after investment violates promissory estoppel. Key takeaway: State cannot defeat vested rights created by clear policy assurances.
The High Court allowed delay in filing GST appeal due to repeated family bereavements beyond the taxpayer’s control. Key takeaway: genuine hardship can justify condonation and enable appeal on merits.
Court held that penalty under Section 270A cannot apply where assessed income does not exceed processed income. Key takeaway: statutory conditions must be strictly met.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings must be initiated within the statutory time limit. It found the notice issued after the deadline to be invalid.
The Court found that the authority failed to follow mandatory procedure under Rule 92(3) before rejecting the refund. It held that absence of hearing and improper notice rendered the order invalid.
Madras High Court held that use of visual identifiers on packaging like fonts, symbols, colours, etc. establishes brandname for GST purpose. However, since there was no suppression of fact invocation of extended period denied.
