The Calcutta High Court permitted withdrawal of appeals after noting that the constitutional validity issue had already been settled. The Court allowed the appellant to pursue fresh appeals on merits before the appellate authority.
The Madras High Court permitted Nidhi companies to submit fresh replies against NDH-4 rejection orders and directed authorities to reconsider the applications after granting a hearing. The Court kept the challenge to the validity of the amended provisions open.
The Rajasthan High Court refused bail in a case involving alleged large-scale GST evasion through fake firms, bogus invoices, and fraudulent e-way bills. The Court held that serious economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies require a stricter approach in bail matters.
The Rajasthan High Court held that GST authorities cannot reopen issues already adjudicated by the Authority for Advance Ruling without fresh material or change in facts. The Court quashed show cause notices alleging misclassification of tobacco products under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
Madras High Court held that the Central Board of Trustees under the EPF Act can challenge Tribunal orders under Article 226 since the constitutional right to seek judicial review cannot be denied.
The High Court held that investment-linked tax incentives under the 2012 industrial policy could continue unless specifically withdrawn or rescinded. The ruling directed authorities to reconsider the claim in light of Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Hero Motocorp.
The High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the hearing notice was received by the taxpayer only after the hearing date. The Court held that denial of adequate opportunity violated principles of natural justice.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a single GST assessment order covering multiple financial years violated Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act and remanded the matter for separate year-wise proceedings.
Uttarakhand High Court directed refund of GST deducted on sale of rejected wheat and paddy seeds after noting that the goods were not sold in branded unit containers and GST liability was not disputed.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were invalid where the Assessing Officer sought to make the same additions already annulled by the CIT(A). The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision quashing the reassessment order.
