Chhattisgarh High Court held that denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/2023-Customs merely because the petitioner did not adopt the LoC route is impermissible in fiscal jurisprudence. Accordingly, benefit granted as petitioner satisfied clause (i) of condition no. 6 of said notification.
The dispute concerned service tax liability proposed in an SCN. The Court held that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked at this stage and directed the petitioner to pursue adjudication remedies.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that there is no illegality or irregularity in sanctioning loans on the same day since no rule prohibited such sanction. The prosecution has not established any dishonest intention on the part of the Branch Manager at the time of sanctioning the loan.
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.
