The dispute concerned denial of ITC on imports due to non-reflection of IGST in the GST portal. The Court relied on customs reports confirming payment and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
The Court found a prima facie case that reassessment was initiated without considering detailed explanations already on record. Interim protection was granted pending further hearing.
The court declined to interfere with GST registration cancellation where the taxpayer failed to reply to a show-cause notice, holding that revocation must be sought before the Proper Officer under Section 30. Liberty was granted to apply for revocation within the statutory framework.
A sanction for prosecution granted by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority is constitutionally invalid and void ab initio. Such defect becomes incurable where subsequent withdrawal of State consent under the DSPE Act bars any fresh exercise of CBI jurisdiction.
The issue was whether reassessment could proceed when financial statements were not called for despite the taxpayer’s willingness to furnish them. The court set aside the notice, holding that lack of proper opportunity vitiated the reopening.
The issue was denial of income-tax exemption to a statutory welfare board. The Court held that a subsequent government notification granting section 10(46) exemption resolved the dispute and nullified the pending tax demand and penalty.
The Court held that IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge was not payable even for pre-2023 periods. The key takeaway is that the Mohit Minerals ruling applies retrospectively.
The Court examined whether a show-cause notice under Section 74 was issued by a competent authority. Limited protection was granted while permitting a response to the notice.
The Court examined a GST final intimation alleged to be issued without jurisdiction and statutory compliance. Interim protection was granted, restraining coercive action pending affidavits.
The High Court held that a GST adjudication order cannot be based on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice. Both adjudication and appellate orders were set aside for violating Section 75(7).
