The court examined allegations that an order under Section 74 was passed without supplying seized documents or digital material. The matter was adjourned for the State to clarify whether such copies could be provided.
The issue was whether further GST recovery could be initiated after interest had already been paid. The High Court granted interim protection, restraining recovery on finding a prima facie case based on prior payment.
The High Court set aside a cancellation order that failed to address the taxpayer’s reply or record reasons. The ruling underscores that unreasoned orders cannot survive judicial scrutiny.
The Court held that reassessment is not barred by change of opinion where the original issue was dropped due to absence of evidence. Subsequent reopening based on new material was found legally sustainable.
The court refused to grant a mandatory stay on income tax demand where the taxpayer had earlier proposed paying dues in instalments. The ruling underscores that voluntary payment proposals can weaken claims for interim protection.
The Court condoned an extraordinary delay after finding that the appellant was genuinely pursuing settlement under a State-backed amnesty scheme. Procedural delay was held insufficient to defeat substantive rights.
The Court accepted that stereo systems installed in e-rickshaws qualify as inputs used in the course of business. Refund of unutilised ITC under the inverted duty structure was directed.
The Court held that recovery proceedings, including bank attachment, must be lifted once the statutory 10% disputed tax is deposited. The ruling clarifies that such deposit results in a deemed stay under GST law.
The issue was whether the Court could direct issuance of a tax clarification for an SEZ unit. The Court held that no such direction could be given while the core issue is pending before the Supreme Court.
The issue concerned dismissal of a GST appeal on limitation grounds. The Court allowed restoration of the appeal on merits, subject to payment of costs, considering the petitioner’s age and reliance on a consultant.
