The Madras High Court held that challenges relating to insolvency proceedings must follow the statutory appellate process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The writ petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust the remedy before NCLAT.
The court refused to convert a GST order from Section 74 to Section 73 because the taxpayer failed to produce supporting documents. The ruling emphasized that absence of records prevents reclassification of proceedings.
The Kerala High Court held that issuing a single GST notice covering multiple assessment years is unsustainable as different limitation periods apply for each year, potentially prejudicing taxpayers.
The Court held that CPCB idol immersion guidelines are advisory and permitted artisans to manufacture PoP idols, while directing that immersion cannot take place without court permission.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s non-appearance before the appellate authority was linked to serious ailments. It directed filing of an appeal before the Tribunal within six weeks.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court order concerning reassessment notices. It held that no ground existed under Article 136 to intervene, leaving the assessee to pursue remedies before the Assessing Officer.
The court declined to interfere with notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 because the petition was filed after more than one and a half years. It held that the assessee should appear before the Assessing Officer and present its submissions.
The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST demand, noting that the statutory appellate remedy was still available. The Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal subject to a 10% pre-deposit.
The court declined to modify earlier directions requiring prompt payment of counsel bills, holding that procedural checks cannot justify delays and interest must be paid for late payments.
The Court held that seizure of ₹1 crore in cash during GST searches was unlawful because authorities failed to record “reason to believe” as required under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.
