The Court examined whether Section 130 could be used when discrepancies were found during a GST survey. It held that the correct legal route is Sections 73/74 and reinforced settled precedents.
The Court examined whether confiscation proceedings under Section 130 were valid for alleged excess stock found during a survey. It held that the law mandates action under Sections 73/74, rendering the orders unsustainable.
The Court examined whether Section 130 proceedings were valid when excess stock was found during a survey. It held that such cases must be dealt with under Sections 73/74, rendering the penalty order unsustainable.
The court held that tax determination must follow Sections 73 or 74 and cannot be replaced by Section 130 proceedings. It found the action legally unsustainable. The ruling reinforces procedural compliance under GST law.
The Court set aside the order because the penalty was not disclosed in the statutory Form DRC-01. It held that demands must be clearly specified in the prescribed notice.
The Court found that the authority acted solely on a recommendation without independent evaluation. It ruled that such action does not meet the statutory requirement of reason to believe.
The issue was imposition of a higher penalty than proposed in the show cause notice. The court set aside the order, holding it violates Section 75(7) and is without jurisdiction.
The Court held that appeals filed beyond the maximum four-month period under GST law cannot be condoned. It ruled that limitation provisions must be strictly followed, leaving no scope for invoking the Limitation Act.
The Court refused to quash criminal proceedings, holding that disputed facts cannot be decided in Section 482 jurisdiction. It allowed the applicant to seek discharge before the trial court.
The Court held that tax authorities cannot coerce payment when no demand has been raised. It directed cooperation in investigation while protecting the taxpayer from undue pressure.
