The issue was whether a taxpayer could pursue a statutory appeal after approaching the High Court against a GST demand order and subsequent bank attachment notice.
The Madras High Court held that failure to file the annual return in Form GSTR-9 attracts late fee under Section 47(2) of the CGST Act. It further ruled that penalty under Section 125 is permissible where no separate penalty is prescribed for such default.
The High Court held that healthcare services remain exempt even when delivered through another hospital under a revenue-sharing arrangement. Classification must follow the true nature of the supply rather than the contractual structure.
FIR registered against officials and the liquidator of Punj Lloyd Ltd. (PLL), which alleged non‑payment of subcontractor dues and misuse of Goods and Services Tax (GST) input credits in connection with the Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL) pipeline project was quashed as mere breach of contractual obligations, delayed payments, GST disputes, or financial reconciliation issues did not constitute the offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention existed from the inception of the transaction.
The issue was whether ITC could be denied solely because the taxpayer failed to produce lorry receipts and weighment slips despite possessing tax invoices and dealing with a registered supplier.
The High Court held that merely issuing a notice is insufficient if the assessee is not informed of further developments or given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The decision underscores the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in jurisdiction transfer matters.
The Kerala High Court condoned a 676-day delay in filing an ITAT appeal after finding that the assessee had bona fide relied on its auditors to file the appeal. The Court held that specific and plausible explanations indicating absence of deliberate inaction justified a liberal approach in the interest of justice.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. are an integral component of criminal investigation and cannot ordinarily be quashed. However, it issued safeguards to protect the petitioner’s right to seek legal remedies.
The Kerala High Court set aside a consolidated notice issued for FY 2019-20 to 2024-25. It held that separate notices must be issued for each assessment year in line with earlier precedents.
The Court granted interim protection after observing that proceedings under Section 73 appeared to nullify refund orders sanctioned under Section 54 without invoking the appellate remedy under Section 107.
