The Court held that issuing a single GST notice covering several financial years is without jurisdiction under Section 74. Each tax period must be assessed separately.
The issue was whether reassessment proceedings could continue when sanction was granted by an incorrect authority. The Court ruled that lack of approval from the designated authority vitiated the entire reassessment.
The Court held that adjusting refunds beyond 20% of a disputed penalty during a pending appeal violates CBDT instructions and ordered refund of the excess amount.
The court held that Section 74 of the CGST Act does not permit consolidated show cause notices for multiple financial years. Notices clubbing different tax periods were therefore set aside.
The High Court set aside the SFIO probe after finding that the Central Government failed to show sufficient material or reasons. The ruling reiterates that investigations cannot be ordered mechanically or on vague allegations.
The Court ruled that a marginal eight-minute delay in filing the return could not justify denial of loss carry forward. The order rejecting condonation was set aside to prevent disproportionate hardship.
The High Court stayed GST demands on co-insurance transactions after noting they were challenged as contrary to binding CBIC circulars, granting interim relief pending replies.
The Court stayed the adjudication order where similar GST classification issues were already pending. Interim relief was granted until final disposal of the petition.
The Court held that a final GST adjudication order passed within three months of the show cause notice violates Section 73 of the CGST Act. Orders issued without granting the statutory minimum response period were declared unsustainable.
The court examined whether a single notice could cover several financial years under GST law. It held that consolidation of multiple tax periods under Section 74 is impermissible.
