The High Court dismissed the petition challenging GST assessment orders due to unexplained delay. It held that lack of timely action bars relief under writ jurisdiction.
The High Court ruled that the amended refund formula under Rule 89(5) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively. Earlier rejection and appellate orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court upheld the GST assessment order, ruling that delay in filing the writ and presence of an auto-generated reference number defeated claims of invalid DIN and unsigned notices.
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.
