The issue was whether IGST paid by mistake could be adjusted against CGST and SGST. The Court held that no such adjustment is permitted and directed payment of correct tax with refund claim for IGST.
The issue involved an additional tax demand on unbilled revenue. The Court found that the authority failed to consider the reply and remanded the matter for fresh review.
The issue was whether ITC can be denied if suppliers fail to deposit tax. The Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be penalized, and action must be taken against defaulting suppliers.
The issue concerned release of ₹58 lakh seized during GST search. The Court disposed of the petition after authorities agreed to release the amount within ten days, while allowing further legal action if required.
The Court declined interference as proceedings were already initiated by both departments. Petitioners were directed to respond to notices through proper channels.
The case addressed denial of refund of VAT pre-deposit made through ITC. The Court held that Section 142(6) mandates cash refund and overrides conflicting departmental circulars, ensuring taxpayer relief.
The Court held that Section 107(11) expressly prohibits remand to the adjudicating authority. The appellate authority must decide the case within prescribed options.
The Court held that cash is not covered under the term “things” in Section 67(2). Seizure of currency was declared without authority of law.
The Court held that the impugned order should be challenged through statutory appeal. Writ jurisdiction was not invoked due to the availability of an effective remedy.
The Court ruled that cancellation cannot be applied retrospectively without proper application of mind. The order was quashed for lack of objective reasoning.
