Andhra Pradesh High Court held that transfer of entire R&D unit as a going concern, including the assets and liabilities, is sale of business and not sale/supply of individual goods under GST. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
The High Court examined whether delay beyond the limit prescribed under GST law could be condoned. It held that appeals filed after the maximum period under Section 107 are not maintainable.
The High Court held that once a company undergoes CIRP and new management is installed, GST authorities must recognize this legal shift and cannot act as if the old management continues.
The High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed long after the assessment order. Delay could not be justified on the plea of inability to access the GST portal.
The High Court set aside a GST assessment order after finding it was issued without the assessing officer’s signature. An unsigned order was held to be legally invalid.
The issue was whether one assessment order could cover three different tax years. The Court held that such composite orders are impermissible and directed fresh, year-wise assessments.
The High Court invalidated a GST assessment order after finding it was issued without the assessing officer’s signature. It held that an unsigned order is legally unsustainable and requires fresh assessment.
The High Court quashed a Section 122 show cause notice due to jurisdictional issues. The ruling allows the department to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.
The Court ruled that filing GSTR-3B returns and paying tax nullifies best judgment assessment orders under Section 62. Interest liability for delayed payment, however, was left intact.
The Court held that interest under reverse charge cannot be recovered without prior adjudication. Coercive recovery was set aside as the liability was not an admitted tax.
