Madras High Court held that appropriation of refund made during pendency of an appeal is construed as payment of duty under protest and hence period of limitation doesn’t apply in such case. Accordingly, appeal stand allowed and order is set aside.
The court examined whether reassessment beyond six years was valid without identifying an asset. It held that the absence of any asset in recorded reasons makes extended limitation inapplicable. The key takeaway is that jurisdictional conditions must be strictly satisfied for reopening beyond six years.
The Court held that the appellant was not given a chance to contest the legality of seizure. It ruled that such challenge must be permitted in confiscation proceedings to ensure fair hearing.
The issue involved denial of representation through counsel during GST proceedings. The Court held that personal appearance cannot be insisted upon when law permits authorised representation.
The court examined whether road tax and penalties could be demanded for issuing an NOC. It held that such charges are not applicable when only an NOC is sought. The key takeaway is that NOC issuance cannot be linked to tax liabilities meant for registration.
The court examined whether confiscation under GST law can be ordered without hearing the affected party. It held that absence of personal hearing violates statutory requirements, making the order invalid.
The court denied bail after finding that the applicant’s involvement in the alleged GST fraud could not be ruled out based on investigation records. The ruling highlights that prima facie evidence and seriousness of allegations outweigh claims of false implication at the bail stage.
Authorities denied GST reimbursement on scrap treating it as non-specified goods. The court found this interpretation inconsistent with the scheme’s definition and exclusion list. The key takeaway is that benefits cannot be denied on grounds not supported by the notification.
The case focuses on systemic delays and technical shortcomings in the e-filing system. The Court directed the Department to file an affidavit addressing these concerns.
The case examined reopening based on a prior disallowance under Section 80IB(10). The Court found that the disallowance had already been reversed by appellate authorities. Therefore, reopening based on the same ground was held invalid.
