GST Registration Cancellation Set Aside for Lack of Proper Reasons, Bank Account Attachment Lapses Automatically Under GST Law after one year: Bombay HC
Sections 74 and 74A operate on fundamentally different legal principles. The Court noted that their combined invocation raises serious legal concerns. Key takeaway: contradictory provisions cannot be applied together.
Recovery action was initiated even after partial tax payment. The Court held that instalment relief must be sought through Form DRC-20. Key takeaway: procedural compliance is essential to obtain payment relief.
The case involved a penalty imposed despite the main tax demand being set aside in appeal. The Court held that the petitioner should seek rectification before the proper officer.
The Court addressed the issue where the GST portal prevented filing of a revocation application due to time limits. It allowed manual submission and directed authorities to consider it.
The Court refused to entertain the writ as a statutory appeal remedy existed under the Finance Act. It allowed the petitioner to approach CESTAT with delay condonation.
Delhi High Court held that challenge to reassessment proceedings initiated under Income Tax Act failed as Court cannot act as an AO and call such documents which otherwise can be done by AO. Accordingly, petition dismissed.
he Court declined to examine merits as the petitioner did not file a reply to the impugned communication. It directed submission of response and continuation of proceedings.
The respondents could not justify why the taxpayer would deposit money without a formal demand. The Court treated the payment as non-voluntary.
The Court held that repeated dishonour of cheque and non-payment after notice established a prima facie case. It refused to quash proceedings at the summoning stage.
