The Gauhati High Court held that the second FIR disclosed additional and distinct offences beyond the earlier complaint. Therefore, the FIR could not be quashed under the test of sameness.
The Gauhati High Court held that when a taxpayer clears outstanding tax, interest, and late fees and files pending returns, authorities must consider restoration of GST registration under Rule 22(4).
The Gauhati High Court held that a summary issued in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the statutory requirement of a proper Show Cause Notice under Section 73. Proceedings initiated without such notice were held invalid.
The High Court set aside cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns and directed restoration upon payment of all statutory dues. The ruling emphasizes revenue interest and compliance.
The High Court held that failure to conduct mandatory pre-show cause consultation rendered the tax proceedings unsustainable, and remanded the matter to CESTAT for fresh decision on merits.
The High Court quashed cancellation and revocation rejection orders, holding that the show-cause notice lacked material particulars. It ruled that quasi-judicial powers must be exercised independently and not mechanically.
The High Court set aside cancellation of GST registration and directed the petitioner to file all pending returns within 30 days. Arrears including tax, interest, and penalties remain payable.
Guwahati High Court held that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is not a substitute to the Show Cause Notice to be issued in terms with Section 73 (1) of the CGST/SGST. Accordingly, order based on issuance of summary of the show cause notice is liable to be quashed and set aside.
The Court allowed the assessee to seek revocation of GST cancellation and regularise returns after expressing willingness to clear dues. Bank accounts were ordered to be defreezed subject to statutory conditions.
The High Court restrained coercive GST recovery as the show cause notice spanned six years in one proceeding. The key takeaway is that consolidated SCNs under Section 74 raise serious legal doubts.
