The Allahabad High Court granted bail in a GST fake ITC case after noting that investigation was complete, the complaint had been filed, and trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception in offences carrying a maximum five-year sentence.
Karnataka High Court observed that the department wrongly construed the term “may” as mandatory while rejecting the waiver application filed under Section 128A of the CGST Act.
The Madras High Court remitted the GST matter for fresh adjudication after the taxpayer agreed to deposit 50% of the disputed tax amount. The Court also directed reconsideration of the reply and supporting documents on merits.
Allahabad High Court held that proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act cannot be initiated without prior determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. The confiscation notice and order were quashed as without jurisdiction.
The petitioner argued that the GST notice was issued by an officer lacking lawful authority, but the Rajasthan High Court held that such issues should first be agitated through the statutory appellate remedy.
The High Court ruled that disputes regarding stock calculation methods and seizure proceedings under Sections 122 and 130 of the GST Act could not be decided in writ jurisdiction due to disputed facts.
The Madras High Court held that membership fees received for long-term time-share agreements could not be fully taxed in the first year because the assessee had continuing obligations to provide facilities over 99 years.
The Court held that cancellation of GST registration is justified where material indicates that ITC claims are supported by fabricated documents and fake invoices. The appeal against cancellation was dismissed.
The Bombay High Court set aside the GST cancellation order after finding that no reasons were recorded and no personal hearing was granted. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following due process.
The Bombay High Court held that penalty proceedings under Section 271-D cannot continue independently when the appeal against the underlying assessment order is pending before CIT(A). The Court directed that the penalty proceedings remain in abeyance until the appellate proceedings conclude.
