The issue involved denial of representation through counsel during GST proceedings. The Court held that personal appearance cannot be insisted upon when law permits authorised representation.
The issue was whether failure to refund investor funds is time-barred. The Court held it is a continuing offence, rejecting the limitation defence. The key takeaway is that non-compliance persists until repayment is made.
The Court found that the petitioner was not given adequate time or opportunity to respond. It ruled that rejection without following procedural safeguards is invalid. The decision reinforces adherence to due process.
The Court held that invocation of the bank guarantee after expiry of the defect liability period was arbitrary. It ruled that absence of defects and delay invalidated the encashment action.
Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited & Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Calcutta High Court) The writ petition challenged a show cause notice dated June 18, 2025 issued under Section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with a subsequent adjudication order dated November 04, 2025. The dispute arose from allegations that […]
Calcutta High Court held that reasonable belief of smuggling based on clandestine conduct and scientific purity of metal is justifiable. Accordingly, absolute confiscation of gold upheld as reasonable belief for seizure u/s. 123 duly established.
The court held that failure to grant a personal hearing violated statutory provisions and natural justice, invalidating the proceedings. It ruled that such defects cannot be cured at the appellate stage.
The court held that revision under section 263 requires independent satisfaction by the PCIT. Acting merely on the Assessing Officer’s view renders the revision order invalid.
The case addressed whether a demand based on a draft order can be enforced. The Court held that tax liability crystallizes only after final assessment. Key takeaway: draft orders have no enforceable value.
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The Court held that absence of fraud or tax evasion justified granting an opportunity for restoration. The key takeaway is that procedural defaults may be cured through compliance.
