The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a composite GST assessment order covering multiple financial years violates Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The matter was remanded for separate assessment proceedings for each assessment year.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a challenge to a GST arrest after finding that the authorities had complied with statutory and constitutional safeguards. The Court held that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest and due procedure was followed.
The Bombay High Court held that a GST adjudication order imposing demand beyond the amount proposed in the show cause notice violates Section 75(7) of the GST law. The Court quashed both the notice and the final order as unsustainable.
The Bombay High Court held that show cause notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot combine multiple financial years into a single proceeding. The Court ruled that GST assessments and limitation periods operate separately for each financial year.
The Karnataka High Court remitted GST proceedings after noting allegations that duplicate adjudication orders were passed for the same tax period on ITC mismatch issues. The Court directed fresh adjudication after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to respond.
Orissa High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging GST classification of iron ore fines exports because the petitioner had not exhausted the appellate remedy under Section 112 of the GST Act. The Court held that disputed classification issues should be decided by statutory authorities.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation after noting the availability of an appellate remedy before the GST Tribunal. The Court held that the petitioner could not bypass the statutory appeal mechanism.
The Karnataka High Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act extended the time limit for availing ITC where returns were filed before 30 November 2021.
The Court ruled that furnishing a bank guarantee equal to the alleged short-paid GST amount was adequate for interim release of the consignment. DGGI’s plea to include the penalty component in the guarantee amount was rejected.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, holding that allegations of mala fide conduct were unsupported by evidence. The Court ruled that statutory investigation based on a Tax Evasion Petition could not be invalidated on speculative claims.
