The issue was rejection of a GST appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit. The Court held that the appellant must be given an opportunity to deposit and have the appeal decided on merits.
The Court held that provisional attachment under Section 110(5) lapses after six months if not extended. It ruled that failure to pass a timely extension order renders the attachment invalid.
The court addressed whether exporters can recover duty paid despite time-barred rebate claims. It held that a fresh application under Section 142(3) can be filed to seek re-credit or refund of excess duty.
The Court quashed all notices and orders as the matter was identical to earlier decisions. It ruled that consistency with precedent requires setting aside such proceedings.
The Court set aside the GST order as it was issued before the date fixed for hearing, denying the petitioner an opportunity to respond. The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to procedural timelines.
The case examined validity of a show cause notice covering several years. The court held that GST law requires year-wise assessment, making such consolidated notices invalid.
The court set aside denial of ITC refund based on intermediary classification without proper examination. It remanded the matter for fresh adjudication considering agreements and legal precedents.
Bombay High Court held that writ petition cannot be entertained in the face of availability of alternative remedy of approaching the NCLAT since claim of violation of principles of natural justice not established. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
The issue was whether share transactions constituted business income or capital gains. The Court upheld investor status based on consistent treatment and factual findings, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal.
The Court examined whether authorities can continue blocking ITC beyond the statutory period. It held that restrictions automatically lapse after one year under Rule 86A(3). The blocking was set aside as it exceeded the permissible duration.
