The court upheld dismissal of a GST appeal filed well beyond the permissible condonation period. It ruled that neither appellate authorities nor writ courts can extend limitation beyond what the statute allows.
Gujarat High Court held that amendment/ rectification of inadvertent error in GST returns [Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B] is permissible if no loss to revenue would be caused. Accordingly, petition is allowed and returns are permitted to be amended.
The court held that bank account attachment under GST cannot continue beyond one year without renewal. Failure to issue a fresh order rendered the attachment illegal.
Court held that reopening of assessment based solely on vague information from Insight Portal, without a live nexus to the assessee’s records, was invalid. Reassessment notice was quashed for absence of concrete material showing income escapement.
The case examined whether a reassessment notice issued after the Ashish Agarwal procedure complied with limitation rules. The court held the notice time-barred as it exceeded the surviving period under TOLA and quashed all proceedings.
The High Court upheld deletion of addition where the Assessing Officer relied on undisclosed information. The ruling reinforces that additions cannot be sustained without confronting the assessee with material evidence.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated without material showing income had escaped assessment. The Court held that mere allegations of circuitous transactions were insufficient. The key takeaway is that actual escapement is mandatory under the amended law.
The court upheld restoration of appeals where earlier dismissal was without merits due to settlement proceedings. Delay condonation and remand were held valid with no jurisdictional error.
The Court held that reopening based on wrong assumptions about return filing and without supporting material is invalid. Mechanical recording of reasons cannot confer jurisdiction.
The case addressed the correct head of income for interest earned on staff loans. The court affirmed the Tribunal’s finding that such income arises in the normal course of business and found no ground to interfere.
