The High Court ruled that the recovery notice could not be challenged as the assessment order determining interest and penalty was not appealed and had attained finality.
The High Court set aside a GST demand order after observing that the adjudicating authority did not examine the taxpayer’s detailed reply and issued only generic conclusions. The ruling emphasized that adjudicating authorities must discuss submissions and provide clear reasons before confirming tax and penalty demands.
The Court revoked cancellation of GST registration after accepting that the taxpayer’s failure to file returns for six months was due to mental stress and physical illness.
The High Court held that general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed when late fee is already levied under GST law. The court therefore removed the penalty while confirming the late fee liability.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings must follow proper procedure when the assessee is deceased. The tax authority must issue notice to the legal representative before initiating proceedings.
The High Court held that a claim for refund of money deposited under a commercial plot allotment scheme arises from contractual obligations. Such disputes must be pursued before a civil court and cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court held that GST circulars issued in 2022 cannot retrospectively restrict refund claims when the taxpayer’s right to claim refund had already accrued and the application was filed within the statutory limitation period under Section 54.
The High Court quashed the appellate order rejecting a GST appeal on the ground of manual filing. The Court held that once the authority accepted the appeal and heard it on merits, it could not dismiss it later on a technical ground.
The Court observed that show cause notices had clearly provided opportunities for personal hearing and submission of documents. It directed payment of costs after finding the allegation of denial of natural justice to be false.
The High Court held that a tax notice and assessment issued in the name of a company that had already merged into another entity were invalid. The ruling clarifies that once the tax authority is informed of a merger, proceedings must be issued in the name of the transferee company.
