The Gauhati High Court set aside a GST registration cancellation after finding the order contained no reasons and was not a speaking order. It held that statutory authorities must record reasons while cancelling registration.
The Court held that the availability of a statutory appeal barred interference in writ jurisdiction. It ruled that no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing the appellate remedy.
The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition due to the availability of a statutory appeal before CESTAT. It held that no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing the appellate remedy.
Gauhati High Court upheld Customs’ seizure of areca nuts, holding that objective circumstances established the statutory reason to believe under Section 110. The goods remained under seizure, while the vehicle was ordered to be released on conditions.
The Gauhati High Court directed restoration of the cancelled GST registration subject to payment of all outstanding tax dues, penalties, and fines. The Court granted relief by following its earlier decision in a similar matter.
The Gauhati High Court held that Customs could not invoke Sections 110 and 111 of the Customs Act without material establishing the foreign origin of the seized areca nuts. The Court ruled that mere suspicion cannot substitute the statutory requirement of “reason to believe.”
The Gauhati High Court set aside a provisional bank account attachment after finding that the authority failed to form the mandatory opinion required under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The Court held that a mechanical attachment order is not legally sustainable.
The High Court held that a taxpayer whose GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns may seek restoration by complying with Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. It directed the authority to consider restoration expeditiously upon filing pending returns and payment of all outstanding dues.
The Gauhati High Court quashed a GST registration cancellation order after holding that it failed to record reasons as required under Rule 22 and Form GST REG-19. The Court restored the proceedings to the show cause notice stage and directed fresh action in accordance with law.
The Gauhati High Court held that the extended limitation under Section 73 cannot be invoked without specific findings of fraud, suppression, or wilful intent. The Court set aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalty for lack of statutory compliance.
