The High Court set aside the tax demand after finding that refunds had been granted and appellate relief accepted on the same facts for other periods. The key takeaway is that inconsistent treatment without distinction in facts or law cannot be sustained.
The High Court held that a show cause notice could not survive when a binding Advance Ruling on the same issue had neither been challenged nor declared void. The notice was therefore quashed as lacking legal foundation.
The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscious claim of exemption and refund amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars, attracting penalty.
The High Court held that service of notices through the registered e-mail address and mobile number satisfied statutory requirements. The assessee’s failure to update contact details or participate in proceedings could not invalidate the assessment.
The Gujarat High Court held that assignment of leasehold rights in a GIDC plot constitutes transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not a supply of service. Consequently, the GST demand under Section 74 was set aside.
The Bombay High Court set aside a penalty order under Section 271-D after finding that the controversy was squarely covered by its earlier decisions. The Court followed established precedents and allowed the writ petition.
The petitioner challenged GST assessment orders alleging procedural and natural justice violations. The High Court held that no exceptional circumstances were established to bypass the appellate remedy under Section 107. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Rajasthan High Court declined to entertain a challenge to a GST show cause notice and adjudication order because an appeal remedy was available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court allowed the petitioner to raise all legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority.
The Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with GST search, sealing, and attachment actions after finding that the taxpayer had not utilized the remedies available under the CGST Act. The Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when effective statutory remedies exist.
The Telangana High Court held that the arrest was supported by material collected during the investigation indicating involvement in alleged GST evasion and online gaming operations. The Court found no illegality in the exercise of arrest powers under the CGST Act.
