SA Aromatics Pvt Ltd and another Vs Union of India and 5 others (Allahabad High Court) The Allahabad High Court decided a batch of writ petitions challenging proceedings initiated under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitions raised […]
The Allahabad High Court observed that requiring taxpayers to obtain temporary IDs from the same officer who passed the order may create delays and scope for malpractice. The Court suggested exploring auto-generation of IDs to ensure easier access to GST appeals.
The High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that the show cause notice and tax determination were issued in the name of a deceased proprietor without notifying the legal representative.
The Court held that the Appellate Authority has no power to remand matters to the adjudicating authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act. Remand portions of the appellate orders were set aside and the authority was directed to decide the appeals on merits.
The Court held that there is no provision for deducting GST, incentive advance, or festival advance from retiral dues and directed full payment without deductions.
The Court granted bail noting the offence is triable by a Magistrate, carries a maximum five-year sentence, and is based on documentary evidence. Absence of risk of tampering weighed in favour of release.
The Court set aside the remand order after finding legal infirmities in compliance with arrest safeguards under the CGST Act. It held that failure to properly furnish written grounds of arrest rendered the remand unsustainable.
The High Court quashed an adjudication order as the notice was served only electronically after GST registration cancellation. Physical service under Section 169 was held mandatory.
Allahabad High Court held that limitation cannot run from mere portal upload of an ex-parte order. The appellate authority must reconsider limitation where no proper communication was made.
The High Court held that Rule 86A merely creates a lien to secure revenue interests and does not amount to recovery of tax. Blocking of ITC was upheld where authorities recorded reasons to believe fraudulent or ineligible availment.
