The Madras High Court directed automatic lifting of bank attachment once the taxpayer deposited 25% of the disputed GST demand and paid the full late fee. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Gujarat High Court held that a GST appeal filed within the additional condonable one-month period cannot be rejected mechanically on limitation grounds. The Court ruled that appellate authorities must examine whether sufficient cause for delay has been properly explained.
The Allahabad High Court held that adverse GST orders passed without granting personal hearing are procedurally invalid. The Court ruled that oral hearing under Section 75(4) is an independent statutory requirement.
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 must comply with the amended limitation provisions under Section 149 effective from 01.09.2024. The Court quashed the notices as time-barred due to absence of material showing escaped income above Rs. 50 lakh.
The Chhattisgarh High Court denied anticipatory bail after finding prima facie material indicating involvement in the alleged coal levy scam. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary due to statements, electronic evidence, and the seriousness of the economic offence.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a CFS operator remained liable to pay cost recovery charges even without formal sanction of customs posts. The Court applied the doctrine of “substance over form” after finding that customs supervision and services were continuously provided.
The Gauhati High Court directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration after the petitioner filed pending returns and cleared tax dues. The Court relied on earlier similar rulings involving cancellation for non-filing of returns.
The Court directed release of the refund amount deposited before it after finding that no interim order from the Appellate Tribunal restrained refund disbursal. The release was made subject to future appellate orders.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST refund rejection order after finding that the adjudicating authority failed to provide proper reasons or consider the taxpayer’s submissions. The Court held that refund claims cannot be rejected through non-speaking orders passed without application of mind.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment notices issued after scrutiny assessment were invalid because the Assessing Officer had already examined the Section 50C valuation issue during original proceedings. The Court ruled that reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion.
