The case involved denial of ITC based on limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that the retrospective amendment introducing Section 16(5) allowed ITC within an extended timeline. It ruled that orders rejecting ITC solely on limitation grounds were unsustainable.
The Court found that the rejection was only a communication and not a legally valid order. It remitted the matter for fresh decision after proper hearing and consideration of all issues.
The case involved cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The Court held that restoration should be considered once the taxpayer complies with filing and payment requirements.
The Court examined whether a single notice covering multiple years was valid. It held that differing limitation periods make such notices prejudicial and upheld separate adjudication.
The Court examined whether additions based on a seized document were valid. It held that lack of investigation and inconsistencies rendered the additions unsustainable.
The company could not claim the concessional GST rate of 0.1% under Notification No. 41/2017-IT(Rate), as the supply of HDPE drums was made to a chemical manufacturer rather than directly to the registered merchant exporter.
The issue involved incorrect computation of interest on IGST refunds. The Court held that authorities failed to follow statutory provisions under Section 56. The key takeaway is that interest must be calculated strictly as per law.
The issue involved an ex-parte GST order demanding ITC reversal without proper notice. The Court held that absence of opportunity to respond violated principles of natural justice. The key takeaway is that hearing is mandatory before passing adverse orders.
The case involved allegations of fraudulent ITC through fake invoices. The Court granted bail noting absence of direct evidence showing personal benefit to the accused. The key takeaway is that lack of direct gain can influence bail decisions in economic offences.
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The Court held that absence of fraud or tax evasion justified granting an opportunity for restoration. The key takeaway is that procedural defaults may be cured through compliance.
