The Allahabad High Court quashed a GST demand order after finding that notices were uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of the prescribed tab. The Court directed issuance of a fresh notice with at least 15 clear days’ notice.
The Allahabad High Court held that filing an appeal against an appellate order does not automatically stay its operation. It directed immediate restoration of GST registration in compliance with the appellate authority’s order.
The Allahabad High Court held that a bona fide typographical error in the date of birth could be corrected since it did not confer any eligibility advantage. It quashed the rejection order and directed the authorities to conduct the petitioner’s detailed medical examination.
The Allahabad High Court held that information regarding cash deposits constituted relevant material for issuing a notice under Section 148. It dismissed the writ petition while permitting the assessee to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
The Allahabad High Court refused to recall its earlier judgment after holding that it had already delivered a detailed decision on merits and that no valid ground for recall was established.
The Allahabad High Court quashed a reassessment after finding that the Section 148 notice was based on an incorrect allegation of property sale. The Court held that reopening requires bona fide reasons supported by relevant material.
The High Court held that the issue requires consideration where the show cause notice preceded the amendment. It granted interim relief allowing the appeal to be entertained without the 10% penalty pre-deposit.
The Court permitted the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted and its members appointed. Appeals filed by June 30, 2026, must be entertained without limitation objections.
The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the GST Appellate Tribunal after noting its constitution and operational readiness. Appeals filed by June 30, 2026, are to be entertained without limitation objections.
The Court held that producing an accused before a Magistrate in another State without obtaining transit remand rendered the detention illegal. The ruling underscores the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards in GST-related arrests.
