The Bombay High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without granting an opportunity of personal hearing violated principles of natural justice. The cancellation and revocation rejection orders were quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Karnataka High Court held that the three-month period for filing a waiver application under Section 128A was directory and not mandatory. The Court quashed rejection of the waiver application that had been dismissed solely on the ground of delay.
The Court held that an advocate filing GST appeals and adopting a legal interpretation on behalf of a client cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy merely for performing professional duties.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed assessment orders after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to disclose the basis for fixing a 94.5% oil yield benchmark. The Court held that non-supply of relied-upon material violated principles of natural justice.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a writ petition was not maintainable where the assessee failed to file a timely statutory appeal and did not comply with the mandatory GST pre-deposit requirement. The Court also noted that notices uploaded on the GST portal could not be ignored.
Karnataka High Court held that GST proceedings initiated for FY 2021-22 were without jurisdiction because the Joint Commissioner lacked valid authority to assign proceedings beyond the permitted period.
The Rajasthan High Court held that a GST penalty order without a DIN was still valid because it contained a verifiable Reference Number (RFN) retrievable through the GST portal. The Court ruled that portal upload, email, and postal service satisfied statutory communication requirements.
The Court ruled that absence of quantified interest and penalty in a GST show cause notice does not by itself invalidate proceedings under the CGST Act. Taxpayers were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead.
Patna High Court held that denial of personal hearing after the taxpayer specifically requested it in writing violated Section 75(4) of the BGST Act and principles of natural justice.
Gujarat High Court observed that additions in bogus purchase cases should be confined to the income component embedded in such transactions rather than the entire purchase amount.
