The Bombay High Court held that show cause notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot combine multiple financial years into a single proceeding. The Court ruled that GST assessments and limitation periods operate separately for each financial year.
The Karnataka High Court remitted GST proceedings after noting allegations that duplicate adjudication orders were passed for the same tax period on ITC mismatch issues. The Court directed fresh adjudication after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to respond.
Orissa High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging GST classification of iron ore fines exports because the petitioner had not exhausted the appellate remedy under Section 112 of the GST Act. The Court held that disputed classification issues should be decided by statutory authorities.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation after noting the availability of an appellate remedy before the GST Tribunal. The Court held that the petitioner could not bypass the statutory appeal mechanism.
The Karnataka High Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act extended the time limit for availing ITC where returns were filed before 30 November 2021.
The Court ruled that furnishing a bank guarantee equal to the alleged short-paid GST amount was adequate for interim release of the consignment. DGGI’s plea to include the penalty component in the guarantee amount was rejected.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, holding that allegations of mala fide conduct were unsupported by evidence. The Court ruled that statutory investigation based on a Tax Evasion Petition could not be invalidated on speculative claims.
The Bombay High Court deferred the bank’s proposed action to take physical possession of secured assets after noting that the DRAT Chairperson was unavailable to hear the petitioners’ restoration applications. The Court granted limited interim protection until 20 May 2026.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that recovery from a retired employee’s dues was unlawful in the absence of fraud, connivance, or misrepresentation. Court, however, permitted authorities to revise pension calculations excluding a pending DPC placement.
The Court ruled that claimants could initiate execution proceedings and continue receiving interest if the agreed compensation was not disbursed within the stipulated period under the mediation agreement.
