The High Court set aside GST recovery and appellate orders after finding that no effective opportunity of hearing was granted to the taxpayer.
The High Court stayed a GST demand where the assessee alleged denial of a personal hearing under Section 75(4). The case turns on whether service through the portal sufficed after registration cancellation.
The court set aside tax and penalty proceedings initiated solely because the supplier’s GST registration was earlier cancelled. It held that once the registration was restored and transactions were supported by evidence, Section 74 action could not survive.
HC found that ITC was allowed without addressing findings of paper transactions and returned payments. Matter was remanded for fresh consideration by Tribunal.
The case addressed GST demands raised through orders uploaded on the portal without proof of access. The Court ruled such orders were not effectively communicated. Matters were remanded after setting aside the demands, subject to partial deposit.
Allahabad High Court held that writ petition under Article 226 is not be maintainable if there is an alternative remedy under different jurisdiction of the same High Court. Accordingly, writ by developers challenging concurrent orders of Consumer Commissions dismissed.
The issue was whether a single GST show cause notice could cover several assessment years. The court granted interim protection, staying coercive action pending detailed examination.
The court examined whether a GST demand could exceed the amount proposed in a show-cause notice. It held that enhancement of demand violates Section 75(7) and set aside the assessment and appellate orders.
The Court found that confiscation based solely on surplus stock found during survey lacks legal basis. The tax authority was directed to decide the matter afresh after hearing the taxpayer.
With the seizure order set aside, the Court ordered refund of amounts deposited. The decision reinforces proportionality in GST enforcement actions.
