The Gauhati High Court held that sufficient cause for delay may be explained in the memorandum of appeal itself. It ruled that an appeal cannot be rejected solely because no separate condonation application was filed.
The Gauhati High Court held that a service tax demand based only on Form 26AS, without examining the nature of services or taxability, is unsustainable. The Court quashed the tax demand, interest, and penalties.
The Gauhati High Court held that a taxpayer whose GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns could seek restoration by complying with the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. It directed the authority to consider the application in accordance with law after compliance.
The Court held that a purchasing dealer cannot be denied input tax credit solely because the supplier failed to deposit tax with the Government. It ruled that action must ordinarily be directed against the defaulting supplier unless collusion or lack of bona fides is established.
The Court held that cancellation of GST registration through a non-speaking order violates the statutory requirement of recording reasons. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules.
The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in restoring benami appeals solely on the basis of liberty granted in a later Supreme Court review order. It ruled that statutory limits governing review proceedings must still be satisfied.
The Court held that where a purchasing dealer has complied with statutory requirements and acted in good faith, ITC cannot be denied solely because the supplier failed to discharge tax obligations. The impugned adjudication and appellate orders were therefore quashed.
The Court directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration where the taxpayer undertook to furnish pending returns and pay tax, interest, penalty, and late fees in accordance with Rule 22(4).
The Gauhati High Court held that partners who retained benefits from GST violations and acted behind such transactions can be penalized under Section 122(1A). The ruling clarifies that liability extends beyond the taxable entity in appropriate cases.
The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be justified solely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax, where the purchasing dealer acted bona fide and complied with statutory requirements.
