The Karnataka High Court set aside a GST adjudication order after finding that the authority incorrectly stated that no reply had been filed. The Court held that ignoring the taxpayer’s submissions violated principles of natural justice.
The Karnataka High Court restored GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns, despite the appeal being dismissed on limitation grounds. The Court held that restoration could be granted where the taxpayer is willing to file pending returns and pay taxes, interest, and penalty.
The judgment recognised the contractual priority of GST and other specified payments from the Revenue Collection Account. The Court permitted fixed licence fee deductions while restraining adjustments towards disputed incremental revenue.
The Calcutta High Court held that allegations arising from a financial dispute and strained relations did not satisfy the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court found no prima facie evidence of instigation or intentional provocation.
The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with the assessment order in writ proceedings, citing the availability of an effective statutory appeal remedy. The Court held that all factual and legal grounds, including alleged violation of natural justice, can be raised before the appellate authority.
The Telangana High Court set aside the rejection of a GST appeal that had been dismissed on limitation grounds despite being filed within the 45-day period granted by an earlier High Court order. The ruling underscores that litigants should not suffer for inadvertent procedural lapses.
The Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to file an appeal against a Section 73 order despite the delay in approaching the appellate authority. The Court also directed that no coercive action be taken for two weeks, provided the appeal is filed with the statutory pre-deposit.
The Court held that cancellation of GST registration through a non-speaking order violates the statutory requirement of recording reasons. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules.
The Court held that the bank could not be penalized under Section 201 for complying with binding judicial directions that prohibited TDS on LTC payments during the relevant assessment year.
The Court held that penal interest could not be imposed after the petitioner had paid the admitted dues and the earlier dismissal order had been recalled. The ruling turned on the specific facts of the case and was declared non-precedential.
