The High Court did not decide the constitutional challenge but directed authorities to reconsider the taxpayer’s objections and documents. The key takeaway is that ITC disputes must be adjudicated after proper evaluation and a reasoned order.
The issue was whether a refund rejection without hearing is valid. The Court held that ex parte orders violating procedure are unsustainable and restored the application for fresh consideration.
The issue was whether a vague notice could justify cancellation of GST registration. The Court held that lack of material particulars invalidates the notice and order, leading to restoration of registration.
The issue involved challenge to a GST demand order where appeal was delayed. The Court allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation, ensuring the matter can be decided on merits.
The issue was a GST order passed without considering the taxpayer’s reply or giving reasons. The Court allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation and protected the taxpayer from coercive recovery.
The court examined whether reassessment could proceed without any incriminating material from search. It held that absence of such material vitiates jurisdiction, leading to quashing of proceedings.
The issue was rejection of a rectification application due to delay while ITC was disputed. The Court allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation, emphasizing appellate remedy over technical rejection.
A statutory tax charge d noidt constitute a secured interest under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) therefore, the Court directed the removal of the TNVAT Department’s attachment over the corporate debtor’s property.
The case examined whether a single show cause notice could cover multiple tax periods. The Court held such consolidation violates the GST framework and quashed the notice with liberty to reissue year-wise.
The case addressed whether a refund rejection without granting a personal hearing and providing only seven days to respond was valid. The court set aside the order, holding that such action violated Rule 92(3) and principles of natural justice.
