Delhi High Court declines writ relief in ITC fraud case, directing petitioners to approach appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a challenge to a GST Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) arguing it was premature. The Court held the error was hyper-technical since the petitioner disputed the entire liability, distinguishing the Agrometal precedent.
The Delhi High Court holds that the challenge to GST notifications extending time limits for Section 73 adjudication orders must await the Supreme Court’s ruling on the validity of Section 168A extensions, noting conflicting High Court judgments.
Allahabad High Court rules GST penalty invalid where e-way bill was delayed due to technical reasons and no intent to evade tax was found.
Delhi High Court sets aside GST order for denial of hearing; directs fresh adjudication. Validity of GST time extension notifications left to Supreme Court.
Madras HC set aside rejection of refund under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act for a cotton yarn manufacturer, holding that CBIC Circular No.135/05/2020-GST cannot override statutory provisions. The court relied on rulings of other High Courts that had struck down the circular as ultra vires.
Karnataka HC ruled that refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit under Section 54(3)(ii) of CGST Act is permissible even if input and output goods are identical, holding that restriction in earlier circulars was deleted and revised circular applies retrospectively.
Cross-empowerment under Section 6(1) of the CGST Act was automatic and did not require a separate Government notification. Both Central and State GST officers possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate intelligence-based enforcement actions.
Provisional release order by substituting the bank guarantee requirement with a bond of equivalent amount, while retaining other conditions. The Court emphasized that onerous financial conditions prior to adjudication are unwarranted, especially for non-prohibited goods, and directed release upon compliance within seven days.
Delhi High Court held that seized amounts prima facie being proceeds of crime cannot be termed as income of accused as trial in PMLA case is yet to be conclude. Accordingly, it is erroneous to treat such amount as taxable income recoverable by Income Tax Department.
