The Court examined whether tax authorities can issue a single order for multiple years. It held that composite orders are invalid and directed separate orders for each year.
The petitioner alleged denial of hearing and cross-examination. The Court ruled that no such violation was established at this stage and deferred such issues to appropriate proceedings.
The case examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when approval was obtained from an incorrect authority. The Court held the sanction invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements, rendering the reassessment void. The ruling highlights strict adherence to approval hierarchy in reopening cases.
The court examined cancellation of GST registration issued without stating any reasons. It held such non-speaking orders invalid and restored registration, emphasizing that reasoned orders are mandatory.
The High Court ruled that rejecting condonation requests through mere communication without a speaking order is invalid. Authorities must pass reasoned decisions after proper consideration.
The issue concerns whether startups can sell regulated products without BIS certification. It is established that certification is mandatory under QCOs, and non-compliance can lead to penalties, bans, or closure.
The Court found that tax already paid cannot be demanded again through adjudication proceedings. It allowed the taxpayer to seek rectification with proof of payment.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to seek revocation even after expiry of the statutory timeline. It directed authorities to consider delay condonation and decide the matter on merits.
The Court held that tax authorities cannot coerce payment when no demand has been raised. It directed cooperation in investigation while protecting the taxpayer from undue pressure.
The issue was whether a GST order passed without considering reply should be set aside in writ. The Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal with delay condonation, leaving merits open.
