The High Court addressed the issue of a statutory GST appeal being impossible due to a non-functional tribunal. It held that the appeal may be filed once the Tribunal President takes charge, with statutory protection continuing meanwhile.
The issue was whether recovery could proceed when the statutory appellate forum was unavailable. The Court held that recovery must remain stayed, allowing the taxpayer to file an appeal once the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes functional.
The issue was whether a taxpayer could be denied appellate remedy due to non-appointment of GSTAT members. The Court held that limitation would start only after the Tribunal becomes functional and granted liberty to file appeal with statutory stay.
The High Court considered whether continued custody was justified in a GST offence case after filing of the complaint. It granted bail noting prolonged detention and the likelihood of delay in trial.
The High Court held that additions for excess cash and stock cannot rest only on a survey statement. It ruled that statements under Section 133A lack conclusive evidentiary value without corroborative material.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that denial of refund claim on the basis of limitation cannot be justified, since amount during investigation was paid under bona fide belief and particularly, when the Department itself acknowledged non-liability. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The High Court rejected the argument of delayed receipt of the revised mark sheet due to absence of proof. It affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition seeking another re-evaluation.
The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application as the applicant was absconding and implicated in a fraudulent lottery cybercrime. Bail was denied considering the nature of offences under IPC and IT Act.
The High Court held that the petitioner must pursue the appellate remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, declining to interfere with the ₹3.38 crore GST demand. The ruling emphasizes that writ jurisdiction cannot substitute statutory appeal mechanisms.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that TCS provisions covered under section 206C(1C) of the Income Tax Act doesn’t apply to amount of compounding fees/ fine that was recovered from illegal miners and transporters of minerals.
