Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail in an alleged fake ITC case after noting that investigation was complete and evidence was mainly documentary and electronic. The Court held that continued custody was not justified when no further interrogation was required.
In a commercial suit regarding specific performance, High Court had allowed a Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order of the Special Judge for Commercial Disputes that had rejected the plaintiffs’ application to file additional documents.
The Delhi High Court held that an adjudication order passed by an officer who never personally heard the assessee violates principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that “one who hears must decide” and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Delhi HC held that a taxpayer can legally carry on business through a mobile phone in addition to the registered principal place of business.
Madras High Court held that objections regarding fraud, suppression, and penalty proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act should be raised before the appellate authority. The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction where statutory appeal remedies were available.
The High Court held that refund rejection orders must contain specific findings and proper reasoning. Since the appellate authority failed to provide a speaking order, the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST assessment order after finding that the taxpayer was given only one day to respond to the show cause notice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to file a reply.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a composite GST assessment order covering multiple financial years violates Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The matter was remanded for separate assessment proceedings for each assessment year.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a challenge to a GST arrest after finding that the authorities had complied with statutory and constitutional safeguards. The Court held that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest and due procedure was followed.
The Bombay High Court held that a GST adjudication order imposing demand beyond the amount proposed in the show cause notice violates Section 75(7) of the GST law. The Court quashed both the notice and the final order as unsustainable.
