The Court held that the amendment to Rule 89(5) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively to earlier refund claims. Refund denial was set aside as authorities failed to consider binding legal developments.
The court held that leased assets qualify for depreciation since they are used in the course of business. It clarified that physical use by the assessee is not required if leasing generates business income.
The issue was whether arbitral award damages and settlement terms constitute “supply” under GST law. The Court held they do not amount to consideration for supply, and quashed the IGST demand.
The issue was rejection of a declaration under the dispute resolution scheme citing lack of quantification. The Court held that liability was quantified before the cutoff date and directed acceptance of the declaration.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated after four years without fresh evidence. The court held such reopening invalid when based on existing records and no failure of disclosure.
The Court held that combining multiple financial years in a single show cause notice violates the CGST Act scheme. It quashed the notice and allowed fresh issuance as per law.
The case addressed whether a second GST refund application is maintainable when a prior claim covered the same period. The Court held that no statutory bar exists under Section 54(1), and rejection on technical grounds was invalid.
Court held that penalty under Section 270A cannot apply where assessed income does not exceed processed income. Key takeaway: statutory conditions must be strictly met.
The Court found that the authority failed to follow mandatory procedure under Rule 92(3) before rejecting the refund. It held that absence of hearing and improper notice rendered the order invalid.
The Court examined whether employees could be penalised under Section 122(1A) for company-level GST violations. It held that only “taxable persons” fall within the scope of the provision, excluding employees without independent registration.
