The Court halted GST proceedings questioning mandatory 1/3rd land deduction. It held that jurisdiction is doubtful as the underlying notification has been challenged as ultra vires.
The High Court noted that large penalties were imposed on corporate entities while the individual accused faced only a limited penalty, making the restriction on travel unjustified.
The Court emphasized that revisionary powers under Section 264 are broad and intended to correct mistakes causing injustice to taxpayers. Authorities must examine the claim on merits rather than dismiss it on technical grounds.
High Court held that adjusting the entire refund during operation of a Tribunal stay order contravened the order and required refund of the excess amount.
The Bombay High Court directed authorities to consider a representation seeking extension of tax incentives granted under the Tourism Policy, noting that the matter involves policy decisions requiring inter-ministerial consultation.
The Court held that CPCB idol immersion guidelines are advisory and permitted artisans to manufacture PoP idols, while directing that immersion cannot take place without court permission.
The Court held that seizure of ₹1 crore in cash during GST searches was unlawful because authorities failed to record “reason to believe” as required under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.
The Bombay High Court invalidated reassessment proceedings because the satisfaction note was recorded with delay and lacked a mandatory Document Identification Number.
The Bombay High Court set aside a settlement order where the department adjusted a refund of one tax period against dues of another under the MVAT Amnesty Scheme.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST adjudication order because verification reports relied upon by the authorities were not furnished to the taxpayer. The court held that denying access to such reports violates principles of natural justice and ordered a fresh hearing.
