The Bombay High Court held that corporate guarantees issued without any fee, commission, or consideration cannot be treated as taxable supplies under GST. The Court quashed GST proceedings and show cause notices issued against the company.
Bombay High Court held that revisionary powers under Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer had already conducted enquiries and accepted a plausible view. Mere dissatisfaction with the depth of enquiry does not render the assessment order erroneous.
The Bombay High Court ruled that GST authorities cannot create a negative balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger while blocking ITC under Rule 86A.
The Bombay High Court held that GST proceedings initiated against a company that ceased to exist after merger were void ab initio. The Court ruled that Section 87 of the CGST Act does not permit fresh notices against non-existent entities.
The court disposed of the petition after the State withdrew the contested GST cancellation order. Authorities were directed to restore the registration promptly. The ruling clarifies that defective orders may be withdrawn and corrected.
The court examined whether reassessment could be initiated after four years based on existing records. It held that reopening founded on a change of opinion is impermissible, and such reassessment was quashed. The ruling reinforces limits on reassessment powers.
The case involved denial of GST refund without following mandatory procedure under Rule 92(3). The Court held that absence of notice and hearing invalidates the rejection and ordered fresh consideration.
The case addressed whether multiple financial years can be combined in a single show cause notice under GST law. The Court held such consolidation impermissible, emphasizing that each financial year is a separate tax period.
High Court held that reliance solely on affinity test and cultural traits was insufficient where extensive documentary records, including pre-constitutional entries and family validity certificates, supported the Scheduled Tribe claim.
The court declined to decide intermediary classification and directed the petitioner to pursue remedies before the appellate authority. All issues were kept open for independent adjudication.
