Despite repeated opportunities, the tax department failed to provide instructions regarding recovery made before the appeal window closed. The Court disposed of the matter by allowing a refund application and ordering a time-bound decision by the tax authority.
The Court permitted the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted and its members appointed. Appeals filed by June 30, 2026, must be entertained without limitation objections.
The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the GST Appellate Tribunal after noting its constitution and operational readiness. Appeals filed by June 30, 2026, are to be entertained without limitation objections.
The Kerala High Court held that a composite show cause notice issued for multiple assessment years was legally unsustainable. The Court quashed the notice while permitting fresh separate notices subject to exclusion of time for limitation purposes.
The Delhi High Court held that import restrictions could not apply to consignments that had arrived before the relevant notification was published in the Official Gazette. The ruling reiterates that delegated legislation becomes enforceable only upon lawful publication.
The Kerala High Court held that issuing one show cause notice for multiple financial years is not legally sustainable. While quashing the notice, the Court preserved the department’s right to issue fresh year-wise notices.
The High Court held that prolonged custody and anticipated delay in trial cannot independently justify bail in cases involving commercial quantity narcotics. The statutory requirements under Section 37 continue to govern such applications.
The Delhi High Court discharged contempt proceedings after the petitioner tendered an unconditional apology and undertook not to repeat similar conduct. The Court imposed costs of Rs.3 lakh while censuring the filing of a petition based on false declarations.
The Bombay High Court held that TCS paid under protest before assessment must be considered while calculating the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act. The Court found that the amount already paid exceeded the statutory requirement, eliminating the need for any further deposit.
The Court held that a purchasing dealer cannot be denied input tax credit solely because the supplier failed to deposit tax with the Government. It ruled that action must ordinarily be directed against the defaulting supplier unless collusion or lack of bona fides is established.
