The High Court quashed a GST adjudication order after finding that no personal hearing was granted before passing an adverse decision, in violation of mandatory procedural safeguards.
The court held that the Deputy Commissioner had valid jurisdiction under Section 74 due to lawful sub-delegation by the Commissioner. The key takeaway is that administrative orders can validly assign GST adjudicatory functions.
Issue involved whether adjudication fails if cross-examination under Section 138B is not provided. The Court held that cross-examination is mandatory only when specifically sought, and the Tribunal erred by presuming a violation without deciding this factual issue.
The Court set aside a GST demand that exceeded the amount proposed in the show-cause notice. The ruling reinforces the statutory cap under Section 75(7) on confirmed demands.
The High Court closed the writ petition after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted and was operational. Taxpayers were allowed to file statutory appeals without limitation objections.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition after the constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, permitting the taxpayer to file a statutory appeal. The ruling clarifies that writ jurisdiction need not continue once the appellate forum is operational.
The Court set aside a GST demand after finding that tax liability was discharged under CGST and SGST instead of IGST. Authorities were directed to reassess liability and grant refund if excess tax was paid.
The Court ruled that omission to issue Section 143(2) vitiates reassessment at the root. Such a defect cannot be cured, even if the return is alleged to be defective.
The Court examined a GST demand raised after the death of a proprietor and held that proceedings against a dead person are invalid. The ruling clarifies that authorities must issue notice to legal heirs before any tax determination.
The High Court examined a GST demand raised beyond the amount mentioned in the show-cause notice. Holding it violative of Section 75(7), the Court quashed the demand and ordered fresh adjudication.
