The Allahabad High Court held that service of a GST show cause notice solely through the common portal is insufficient once registration has been cancelled. The adjudication order was quashed for violating principles of natural justice.
The Court held that the dispute involved a pure legal question regarding composite versus mixed supply. Finding a prima facie jurisdictional issue, it ruled that the writ petition was maintainable.
The High Court found no evidence of intent to evade tax despite the address discrepancy in the invoice. It directed refund of the penalty collected from the petitioner.
The Court held that the proceedings should have been conducted under Section 129(1)(a) since the petitioner was the owner of the goods. The detention order was quashed and fresh action was directed on the basis of invoice valuation.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the dismissal of a GST appeal that was rejected due to a 451-day delay. Relying on an earlier coordinate bench ruling, the Court remanded the matter for consideration on merits.
The High Court set aside retrospective GST registration cancellation after finding that the show cause notice failed to disclose the factual basis of the allegations. The ruling emphasizes the need for a meaningful opportunity to respond before adverse action is taken.
The Court held that toll collection rights granted under a BOT concession agreement amounted to consideration for works contract services. As a result, GST liability on the road construction arrangement was upheld.
The High Court held that an earlier CGST show cause notice involving overlapping entities could not be ignored. The State GST notice was directed to remain in abeyance pending adjudication by the CGST Authority.
The High Court directed the Tax Recovery Officer to decide the taxpayer’s pending objection after payment of arrear MV tax. It also restrained authorities from taking coercive recovery measures until the objection is adjudicated.
The High Court held that the addition under Section 40(a)(i) could not survive because it was made contrary to the DRP’s binding directions. The assessment order was set aside to that extent.
