The issue was whether a vague notice could justify cancellation of GST registration. The Court held that lack of material particulars invalidates the notice and order, leading to restoration of registration.
The court examined whether delay in Form 10B filing could be condoned but found the authority rejected it on unrelated grounds. It held that such rejection beyond the scope of Section 119(2)(b) was invalid and remanded the matter.
The Court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny assessment. It ruled that reopening based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid.
The Court dismissed the petition after finding that the petitioner failed to establish a clear connection with the goods and transaction. It held that lack of locus itself justified rejection of the challenge to the confiscation notice.
The Court ruled that cotton seed oil cake qualifies as cattle feed and is exempt from GST. The key takeaway is that exemption applies from the beginning of GST regime.
The ruling confirms that additions cannot be made merely on suspicion without supporting material. The Court found that the Assessing Officer did not bring any evidence to disprove the assessee’s transactions.
A taxpayer could submit a revised return u/s 139(5) only when it discovered a bona fide omission or incorrect statement in the original return submitted u/s 139(1).
The ruling highlights that ignoring a taxpayer’s additional reply and request for hearing renders the order unsustainable. The case was remanded for reconsideration after proper opportunity of hearing.
The case addressed whether omission of Rule 96(10) affects ongoing disputes over IGST refunds. The Court held that the omission applies to pending proceedings, allowing refund claims to proceed.
The court held that the rectification order failed to satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 161 of the CGST Act. The impugned order was quashed, directing issuance of a fresh speaking order after considering the taxpayer’s reply.
