The Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after noting that the entire disputed tax liability had already been recovered. The taxpayer was allowed to submit additional documents and explanations.
The Karnataka High Court set aside GST registration cancellation after finding that the taxpayer was in custody and unable to respond to the show cause notice. The Court held that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice.
The Court held that ITC could not be denied where returns were filed before the cut-off date specified under Section 16(5). It quashed the assessment orders and directed reconsideration of the claim.
The Madras High Court held that a show cause notice and assessment order issued in the name of a deceased proprietor are void. The order was quashed, with liberty granted to proceed against legal heirs according to law.
The Court granted bail after noting that the principal material against the applicants consisted of confessional statements and statements of co-accused persons. Charge sheets had already been filed in the cases.
The Karnataka High Court directed that a fresh refund application be treated as filed on the date of the original application. The period spent addressing repeated deficiency memos was excluded for limitation purposes.
The Madras High Court set aside an ex parte GST assessment after the taxpayer claimed that notices were served only through the GST portal. The key takeaway is that taxpayers may receive a fresh opportunity to contest proceedings where effective participation was lacking.
The Madras High Court set aside an ex-parte GST assessment against a second-hand mobile phone dealer who claimed taxation should apply only to the margin under Rule 32(5).
The Madras High Court held that a taxpayer assessed under Section 62 for non-filing of GST returns can still obtain reassessment by subsequently filing the pending returns. The key takeaway is that GST law provides a statutory opportunity to regularize compliance even after a best judgment assessment.
The Delhi High Court held that exoneration under Section 73 does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 74 because both provisions operate in distinct legal spheres. Taxpayers must challenge factual findings through statutory appeals rather than writ petitions.
