Rajasthan High Court held that failure to file GST returns in one state makes the taxpayer a defaulter and can justify denial of GST registration in another state.
The Madras High Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected at the institution stage without numbering the suit. It ruled that courts perform a ministerial function while numbering suits and set aside the trial court’s rejection order.
The Karnataka High Court set aside orders rejecting TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 credit claims after noting that relevant documents were not examined earlier. The matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny by the adjudicating authority.
High Court held that adjusting the entire refund during operation of a Tribunal stay order contravened the order and required refund of the excess amount.
Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Vigneshwara Transport Company (Karnataka High Court) SCN u/s 74 GST Valid even if based on Material from allegedly Illegal Search or from another Commissionerate-Karnataka HC The Karnataka High Court held that proceedings u/s 74 of the CGST Act are independent adjudicatory proceedings & are not dependent on validity of […]
The Calcutta High Court declined to interfere with an income tax assessment order, holding that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory appeal remedy is available. The Court directed the assessee to pursue the appellate process.
The Madras High Court examined repeated provisional attachment orders issued under Section 281B without detailed reasoning. The Court directed reconsideration of the attachment to enable the assessee to access working capital facilities.
The Court held that merely earning higher profits by related concerns does not establish diversion of trust funds. Without evidence of undue benefit to specified persons, Section 13(1)(c) cannot be invoked.
The High Court granted interim relief to a contractor after observing that the determination of the Delhi Jal Board’s status under the CGST Act will decide whether GST applies at 12% or 18%.
The High Court found that the taxpayer attempted to obtain a second refund despite already receiving the amount earlier. The Court set aside the order granting refund and imposed ₹5 lakh costs for misrepresentation.
