The Court held that input tax credit claimed on invoices from non-existent dealers justified penalty under VAT law. It reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies on the assessee and cannot shift to the Revenue.
The Court set aside a show cause notice that combined several financial years into one proceeding. It held that each assessment year must be treated separately under Section 73 of the CGST Act.
The Court held that each financial year creates a separate cause of action, making a consolidated notice legally unsustainable. It quashed the notice and allowed fresh year-wise proceedings.
The ruling found that issuing a single notice for multiple tax years violates statutory requirements. The Court quashed the notice and permitted authorities to issue separate notices for each year.
The case examined whether a modified return could be scrutinized again after assessment. The ruling clarified that once assessment is completed considering reorganisation, further scrutiny is impermissible.
The Court granted interim relief in a petition challenging GST under RCM on development rights. It recognized the issue as already under judicial scrutiny in a similar case.
The Court granted interim relief as the issue matched an earlier pending case. It ensured consistency in judicial approach and protected the taxpayer.
The issue was rejection of an appeal filed beyond the condonable period under GST law. The Court allowed reconsideration due to a minor nine-day delay supported by valid reasons.
The Court condoned a 687-day delay in filing Form 10B, accepting the explanation of unintentional oversight in online filing. It held that denial of exemption due to such delay would be unjust, especially for a charitable trust.
Relying on binding precedent, the Court issued directions to resolve overlapping GST inquiries. It stressed adherence to structured coordination mechanisms between authorities.
