The Kerala High Court set aside both the show cause notice and order-in-original issued for multiple assessment years through a single proceeding. The Court permitted fresh action through separate notices for each relevant year.
The Kerala High Court permitted the Official Liquidator to prematurely close fixed deposits to facilitate payment of dividends to creditors. The Court also approved related steps necessary for completing the disbursement process.
The Madras High Court held that Section 125 cannot be invoked where the GST law specifically provides for late fee under Section 47 for non-filing defaults. The ruling clarifies that general penalty provisions operate only in the absence of a specific penalty mechanism.
The Court directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration where the taxpayer undertook to furnish pending returns and pay tax, interest, penalty, and late fees in accordance with Rule 22(4).
The Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes operational, taxpayers must ordinarily pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The writ petition challenging a refund-related appellate order was dismissed with liberty to approach GSTAT.
The Court held that a single show cause notice spanning different assessment years is legally unsustainable. Authorities were permitted to initiate fresh proceedings through separate notices for each financial year.
The Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order after the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal had lapsed. It held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass prescribed appellate remedies.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the alleged GST offence, involving liability below Rs. 5 crore, was non-cognizable under the GST framework. The applicant’s request for pre-arrest protection was accordingly dismissed.
The Telangana High Court dealt with the legality of issuing multiple show cause notices for the same tax period without adjudicating the earlier notice. The Court set aside the ex parte assessment order and directed a fresh adjudication after granting the taxpayer an opportunity to respond.
The issue was whether a GST appeal filed within limitation could be dismissed merely because the mandatory pre-deposit was not made simultaneously with the appeal filing. The Telangana High Court held that such rejection was unjustified when the pre-deposit was subsequently made during the pendency of the appeal.
