The Court held that ITC refund on capital goods cannot be granted when the dealer failed to file TRAN-1 under GST transition rules. The ruling confirms that the VAT Act provides no mechanism for such refunds.
The High Court held that a works contract for supply, installation, and commissioning of machinery was indivisible. The Court allowed tax benefits under Section 3(F)(2)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
The Court held that brief delays in producing documents during transit do not constitute grounds for a Section 48(5) VAT penalty, setting aside the penalty imposed on the assessee.
The Allahabad HC held that the show cause notice under Section 74 was invalid as it did not specify fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, quashing the notice.
Court ruled that protections under the RBI Circular apply only to third-party breaches and cannot be invoked to recast personal transactions as fraud. Since bank records showed the petitioners’ own involvement, the writ was dismissed.
Allahabad High Court held that proceedings under GST Section 130 are not permissible against a registered dealer; actions should have been initiated under Sections 73/74.
The High Court held that a show cause order passed ex parte before the expiry of the response period violated natural justice. The case was remitted for fresh adjudication with proper hearing.
The Allahabad High Court struck down a GST cancellation order that provided no reasons for rejecting the taxpayer’s explanation, emphasizing procedural fairness and protection of business interests.
The Court invalidated the assessment order after finding that it was issued within a week of notice and without meaningful opportunity of hearing.
The Court held that the assessment order was invalid because no hearing date was communicated after 06.11.2023, resulting in an ex-parte order. The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings.
