The High Court disposed of the writ petition after permitting the taxpayer to seek rectification under Section 161 of the GST Act. The authority was directed to decide the rectification application after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The High Court held that disputes regarding applicable VAT rate and product processing involved factual questions unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition after permitting the taxpayer to seek rectification under Section 161 of the GST Act. The Court directed the authority to decide the rectification application after granting a hearing.
The High Court refused to examine the merits of the GST assessment challenge due to delay in approaching the Court. The petitioner was instead granted liberty to file a statutory appeal with a delay condonation request.
The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a service tax order due to an inordinate delay of nearly four years. The Court held that the petitioner could still pursue any statutory remedy available under the Finance Act, 1994.
The Bombay High Court held that recovery of tax demands could not continue when the department failed to produce the assessment, rectification, or intimation orders creating such demands. The Court quashed the recovery notice and directed withdrawal of the demands.
The Calcutta High Court held that goods detained during transit must be released once the consignor complies with the penalty requirement under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. The Court ruled that disputed ownership alone cannot justify continued detention without supporting material.
The Madras High Court held that a GST assessment order issued after the death of the proprietor was a nullity. The department was permitted to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal heirs in accordance with law.
The Madras High Court set aside GST orders reversing ITC claims after noting the retrospective amendment extending the deadline for availing credit up to 30.11.2021. The Court held that claims falling within the amended timeline could not be denied on limitation grounds.
Delhi High Court held that even if the father may not qualify as a Class-I heir under succession law, he can still fall within the broader definition of legal representative for tax proceedings.
