The High Court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted. It granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act.
The High Court directed the concerned authority to consider the petitioner’s representations on differential GST reimbursement after granting a hearing. It ordered a reasoned decision within six weeks.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the order denying Input Tax Credit and directed fresh adjudication, holding that the issue must be reconsidered in light of earlier Division Bench judgments concerning retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s GST registration and entitlement to ITC.
The Court emphasized that reassessment proceedings must comply with principles of natural justice by providing an effective opportunity of hearing. Ignoring explanations and documents submitted by the taxpayer vitiates the entire reopening process.
The Court ruled that an order passed over three years after the statutory deadline under Section 153(5) was without jurisdiction and void. It held that failure to act within the prescribed period renders the appellate order final and enforceable.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order after finding that the reopening of assessment proceeded on incorrect facts regarding alleged exempt income from penny stock transactions. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The judgment recognised the contractual priority of GST and other specified payments from the Revenue Collection Account. The Court permitted fixed licence fee deductions while restraining adjustments towards disputed incremental revenue.
The Calcutta High Court held that allegations arising from a financial dispute and strained relations did not satisfy the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court found no prima facie evidence of instigation or intentional provocation.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. are an integral component of criminal investigation and cannot ordinarily be quashed. However, it issued safeguards to protect the petitioner’s right to seek legal remedies.
The Calcutta High Court held that refund adjustment against a disputed tax demand was unsustainable when both a stay application and appeal remained pending. The Court directed release of the refund with interest and barred coercive recovery until the stay application is decided.
