High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that contradictory defence evidence failed to rebut statutory presumptions. High Court ruled that breach of Section 269SS may attract penalty but does not make a cash loan unenforceable under NI Act.
The case involved simultaneous proceedings by Central and State GST authorities concerning the same tax period and subject matter. The High Court directed both authorities to coordinate and ensure that only one authority continues adjudication in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The issue was whether a toll contractor should receive relief after the government significantly reduced toll rates shortly after awarding the contract. The High Court granted interim protection against contract cancellation, subject to payment of a reduced monthly amount, and directed the committee to decide the representation expeditiously.
The High Court held that a show cause notice could not survive when a binding Advance Ruling on the same issue had neither been challenged nor declared void. The notice was therefore quashed as lacking legal foundation.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer’s detailed reply and supporting documents were not considered before passing the order. The Court directed fresh adjudication through a reasoned order.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a GST order involving alleged wrongful ITC availment of over ₹17.67 crore because the adjudicating authority failed to consider an audit report relied upon by the petitioner.
The High Court held that the State could not continue GST proceedings or block ITC after failing to submit its claim during the corporate insolvency resolution process. The impugned notice and ITC blockage were set aside.
The issue involved denial of ITC without evaluating submitted documents. The Court directed authorities to reconsider objections with evidence of genuine transactions. The key takeaway is that authorities must examine taxpayer replies before issuing final decisions.
The High Court did not decide the constitutional challenge but directed authorities to reconsider the taxpayer’s objections and documents. The key takeaway is that ITC disputes must be adjudicated after proper evaluation and a reasoned order.
Relying on binding precedent, the Court issued directions to resolve overlapping GST inquiries. It stressed adherence to structured coordination mechanisms between authorities.
