The Court refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was the proper remedy. Filing issues do not override statutory appeal provisions.
The High Court held that omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving clause applies to all pending cases. Refund claims for IGST paid on exports were directed to be processed.
The Court held that deletion of Rule 96(10) and Rule 89(4B) without a saving clause renders them inapplicable to all pending cases. Refund rejections and related proceedings not finalized as on 8 October 2024 were declared lapsed.
The Court held that ITC on charges related to transfer of leasehold rights does not fall within blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d). As no fraud or suppression was shown, invocation of Section 74 was without jurisdiction and the notice was quashed.
The Gujarat High Court granted bail in a GST ITC fraud case, noting that investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed. Continued custody was held unnecessary at this stage.
Gujarat High Court held that the respondent officer could not have assumed jurisdiction for reopening the assessment since there was nothing which indicate that petitioner has participated knowingly in the sham transaction. Accordingly, order is quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that delay beyond the maximum 120-day period under Section 107 of the GGST Act is uncondonable. Writ jurisdiction cannot override statutory limitation.
The High Court held that reassessment cannot be based on grounds not mentioned in the original Section 148A notice. Since no income had escaped assessment, the reopening was quashed.
The Court held that GST paid on assignment of leasehold rights, treated as sale of land, is refundable as such transactions are not taxable supplies.
The High Court held that failure to pass a reasoned final order on an informant’s reward violates the 2007 Guidelines and directed the competent committee to reconsider the claim after hearing the informant.
