The High Court held that marginal delay in filing a GST appeal was sufficiently explained by illness and financial hardship. The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.
The court examined a challenge to a DIR-12 filing that removed multiple directors without consent and held that the form was prima facie defective, directing fresh consideration after hearing all parties.
The court held that after approval of a resolution plan, mesne profit claims cannot proceed against the company or its new management, though quantification may continue against erstwhile management.
The High Court held that dismissal of a GST appeal on delay was improper where illness was supported by records. The key takeaway is that marginal delay with valid reasons must be condoned.
The High Court held that further recovery should be halted where a rectification application against a GST order is pending and substantial tax has already been recovered. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide rectification within a fixed timeframe.
The High Court held that the appellate authority failed to consider material documents placed on record while rejecting a GST appeal. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after proper evaluation of evidence.
The High Court held that delay caused by illness of a partner should have been condoned where the fact was not disputed. The appellate authority’s dismissal of the GST appeal on limitation alone was set aside.
Calcutta High Court held that GST Circular issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs [CBIC] are binding on all the departmental officers but at the same time circular should not be treated as shield to ward off legal scrutiny and shelve legal action in cases involving undisclosed transaction, and/or dubious invoices and bills.
The High Court held that the Tribunal misapplied the law on presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C by wrongly shifting the burden to the Revenue. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Rejecting objections on non-existence of the arbitration clause, the court applied the doctrine of separability. Arbitration was held maintainable despite termination or expiry of the main contract.
