The Gujarat High Court held that arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act was valid as the petitioner had been supplied with the “reasons to believe” and grounds of arrest. The Court ruled that verbatim signed copies were not mandatory.
Patna High Court ruled that recovered GST amounts should be returned to the taxpayer after withdrawal of the assessment order. The dispute related to tax demand issued through Form GST DRC-07.
The Gauhati High Court held that the petitioner could pursue all grounds before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act. Since the statutory remedy remained available, the writ petition was not entertained.
The Court held that mere email communication blocking ITC without a formal order and recorded reasons contravened Rule 86A of the CGST Rules. The blocked input tax credit was directed to be released.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the benefit of Section 115BAA could not be denied when Form 10-IC was filed within the period permitted under CBDT Circulars. The Court ruled that procedural delay could not defeat a clearly exercised tax option.
The Court held that the petitioner had no connection with the entities or individuals from whose devices the disputed material was recovered. The reassessment notices were set aside for lack of nexus.
The Court held that a document dated 2017 could not reasonably be linked to a land transaction executed in 2021 without supporting evidence. The absence of a live nexus rendered the reassessment invalid.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST order after the petitioner stated that notices were sent to a paid email account that became inaccessible due to subscription default. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration and GST registration was restored.
The petitioner stated that reassessment notices were not acted upon because the auditor failed to inform it about the proceedings. The Court allowed fresh adjudication and restored the matter to the Section 148A(b) stage.
The Karnataka High Court set aside a service tax order after observing that the authority failed to properly examine exemption claims under Notification No.25/2012-ST. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show cause notice.
