Writ Maintainable in Contract Dispute Where State Action Found Arbitrary; GST Rate Revision During Contract Execution Must Be Compensated: Court; Denial of GST Differential Refund Held Discriminatory Against Contractor;
Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited & Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Calcutta High Court) The writ petition challenged a show cause notice dated June 18, 2025 issued under Section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with a subsequent adjudication order dated November 04, 2025. The dispute arose from allegations that […]
Bombay High Court held that writ petition cannot be entertained in the face of availability of alternative remedy of approaching the NCLAT since claim of violation of principles of natural justice not established. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that reasonable belief of smuggling based on clandestine conduct and scientific purity of metal is justifiable. Accordingly, absolute confiscation of gold upheld as reasonable belief for seizure u/s. 123 duly established.
The court set aside GST orders after finding both original and appellate proceedings were effectively ex-parte. It held that the taxpayer must be given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice before adjudication.
The Court held that payments cannot be denied credit merely because they were recorded under different accounting heads. It ruled that substantive relief under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme must prevail over technical classifications.
The Court directed the jurisdictional authority to consider the delay condonation request after PAN transfer. It held that the application must be decided in accordance with law.
The case examined whether ITC reversal made during inspection was voluntary. The Court held that the timing and presence of authorities indicated lack of voluntariness. It further restored proceedings to protect the Revenue’s statutory rights and allowed fresh action.
The case addressed whether stock discrepancies could be attributed to a sister concern. The Court held that absence of supporting evidence justified the VAT demand and confirmed the assessment.
The issue was whether share transactions constituted business income or capital gains. The Court upheld investor status based on consistent treatment and factual findings, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal.
